Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

MESSAGES FROM THE QUEEN

IMMUNITIES AND PRIVILEGES

The VICE-CHAMBERLAIN OF THE HOUSEHOLD reported Her Majesty's Answer to the Address, as follows:

I have received your Address praying that the Customs Co-operation Council (Immunities and Privileges) Order, 1960, be made in the form of the draft laid before Parliament.

I will comply with your request.

IMMUNITIES AND PRIVILEGES

The VICE-CHAMBERLAIN OF THE HOUSEHOLD reported Her Majesty's Answer to the Address, as follows:

I have received your Address praying that the International Atomic Energy Agency (Immunities and Privileges) Order, 1960, be made in the form of the draft laid before Parliament.

I will comply with your request.

SUMMER TIME

The VICE-CHAMBERLAIN OF THE HOUSEHOLD reported Her Majesty's Answer to the Address, as follows:

I have received your Address praying that the Summer Time Order, 1960, be made in the form of the draft laid before Parliament in pursuance of the provisions of Section 2 of the Summer Time Act, 1947.

I will comply with your request.

Oral Answers to Questions — LEASEHOLD PROPERTY (FREEHOLDS)

Mr. Fernyhough: asked the Attorney-General if he is aware that many owner-occupiers of leasehold property, the leases of which in some cases have only a few years to run, are being asked by their landlords to buy the freehold at an excessively high price, and that this is causing both anxiety and hardship; and if he will introduce legislation to protect such owner-occupiers from unreasonable demands on the part of the landlord.

The Solicitor-General (Sir Jocelyn Simon): I assume the hon. Member is referring to leases originally granted for a term exceeding twenty-one years. No further legislation is needed. A tenant under such a lease who is offered the freehold on unreasonable terms can reject the offer in reliance on Part I of the Landlord and Tenant Act, 1954, which gives him security of tenure when the lease runs out.

Mr. Fernyhough: Does not the hon. and learned Gentleman think that Her Majesty's Government ought to make it perfectly clear that they resent the intimidation and blackmailing which some landlords are indulging in towards their tenants, causing them grave apprehension? May we take it that the Government are very much against landlords sending off circulars having the effect of which I have spoken?

Mr. Simon: I hope that the Answer that I have just given will receive some publicity and therefore obviate the sort of conduct to which the hon. Member has referred.

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTRY OF WORKS

Ancient Monuments (Protection)

Mr. F. Noel-Baker: asked the Minister of Works what urgent action he will take to prevent further damage to and destruction of ancient monuments under his care, and to repair recent damage to a section of the Wansdyke, near Marlborough; and why he permitted the total destruction, by bulldozer, of a barrow on Morgan's Hill.

The Minister of Works (Lord John Hope): The incident affecting the Wansdyke is in the hands of solicitors, and it would not be proper for me to make a statement about it at present.
The barrow at Morgan's Hill was on land belonging to the Crown Estate and, although ancient monuments on such land are not scheduled under the Ancient Monuments Acts, steps are taken to safeguard them. I understand that the destruction in this case was unauthorised and accidental, but I have arranged for those occupying Crown Estate land containing monuments to be reminded of their responsibilities towards them.
I am satisfied that the existing legislation is generally adequate to ensure the proper protection and preservation of ancient monuments.

Mr. Noel-Baker: The Minister will be aware that Wiltshire contains a larger number of these ancient monuments, especially barrows, than any other part of the country. They are a very important part of our archaeological heritage. A great many of them are rapidly disappearing, and in two or three years' time they may be entirely destroyed. Will the Minister have a careful look at this matter and perhaps consider, when the weather is better, coming to Wiltshire and looking at some of these places on the spot?

Lord John Hope: I have been to Wiltshire and looked at similar monuments, but I shall be very pleased to take advantage of the hon. Member's invitation.

Industrial Monuments and Buildings (Preservation)

Mr. Boyden: asked the Minister of Works if he will give details of the grants made since the beginning of this year under Part I of the Historic Buildings and Ancient Monuments Act, 1953, for the preservation of industrial monuments or industrial buildings of historic interest.

Lord John Hope: Grants towards the cost of repairs have been offered, under these powers, for two windmills—Mount Pleasant Mill, Kirton-in-Lindsey, Lincolnshire, and Pakenham Tower Mill, Suffolk.

Mr. Boyden: Does not the Minister's Answer indicate that more action is required? How far has the Council of British Archaeology gone with regard to the Staffordshire pilot scheme and how far has the Ancient Monuments Board gone in making an interim recommendation as the Committee suggested in its 1959 Report?

Lord John Hope: The hon. Gentleman has gone a little wide of his original Question. As he knows, the Council of British Archaeology has undertaken a pilot survey of ancient monuments which will be a great help when it is completed.

Ancient Monuments Boards and Military Authorities (Liaison)

Mr. Boyden: asked the Minister of Works what steps have been taken by his Department since the last reports of the Ancient Monuments Boards to improve liaison with the military authorities.

Lord John Hope: Since the reference to this subject by the Ancient Monuments Board for England in its Annual Report for 1959, my Department has discussed with the War Office improved arrangements for avoiding damage to ancient monuments in military training areas. Units are regularly warned to avoid these monuments, which are normally marked on the spot by special signs. Details of barrows and other earthworks are also provided in unit information rooms, and methods of identifying the monuments are included in map-reading courses. The Ancient Monuments Board has expressed general satisfaction with these arrangements. I am keeping the matter under review.

Palace of Westminster (Engineers and Workmen)

Mr. D. Griffiths: asked the Minister of Works when he will improve the standard of lighting for engineers and workmen who have to work underground in the Palace of Westminster.

Lord John Hope: I have no reason to believe that the standard of lighting is inadequate. I am willing to look into any specific complaint if the hon. Member will let me have details.

Mr. Griffiths: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his reply, but may I ask whether he is aware that the lighting system is just about as ancient as the Palace of Westminster? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that I saw these engineers at work? Cannot he suggest to those responsible that headlamps should be provided so that these men may have their hands free when they are underground? Instead of having to carry heavy, old-fashioned, antiquated lamps, which give a poor light, could not these men carry lights on their heads, so that their hands may be free?

Lord John Hope: I am grateful to the hon. Member for his suggestion; but I must tell him that there has been no complaint about inadequate lighting, through Whitley Council channels or by individual workers.

Mr. Griffiths: There may not have been any complaints, but is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that anyone who has had experience of working underground would agree that the present system of lighting is abominable and shocking?

Ancient Monuments (Select Committee's Report)

Mr. Fletcher: asked the Minister of Works what steps he is taking to give effect to the recommendations contained in the fifth Report of the Select Committee on Estimates of last Session for giving greater publicity to, and improving the amenities available to the public at, ancient monument sites.

Lord John Hope: For some time, my Department has been paying special attention to the presentation of ancient monuments in my care, including publicity for the monuments and the improvement of amenities for visitors. An Ancient Monuments Presentation Committee now meets regularly under the Chairmanship of my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, to determine how best to give effect to this policy. This Committee is studying the recommendations of the Select Committee on Estimates on these subjects, and will advise me how to give effect to them.

Mr. Fletcher: I welcome that Answer. May we take it that some action will be taken before next summer so that, as

the Select Committee recommended, the public can get greater benefit from these ancient monuments and the Treasury more revenue?

Lord John Hope: Yes, Sir. I am sure that the hon. Member may take it as certain that during next summer we shall see the fruits of what we have been trying to do and what has been recommended. Indeed, there was evidence to this effect last summer, largely due to the efforts of my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Sir H. Nicholls) when he was Parliamentary Secretary. There is now a chance for the public, and for hon. Members, to obtain 7s. 6d. season tickets which are being offered complete with Christmas cards. I hope that the hon. Member has taken advantage of this; if not, I hope that he will, even though it be only in time for the New Year.

Mr. Fletcher: asked the Minister of Works whether he has considered the Fifth Report from the Select Committee on Estimates of last Session relating to the working out of a common programme by him and the Minister of Housing and Local Government for systematic survey of the nation's inheritance of buildings of historic, architectural and archaeological interest; and what steps he is taking in the matter.

Lord John Hope: I am considering this recommendation in consultation with my right hon. Friends the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Minister of Housing and Local Government.

Mr. Fletcher: Does not the Minister agree that it is rather absurd that there should be this overlapping between his Department, the Ministry of Housing and Local Government and the Royal Commission? Does not he agree, as the Select Committee recommended, that these kindred processes of listing, scheduling and recording ought to be undertaken as one service, otherwise work is being duplicated in one area while other areas are completely neglected?

Lord John Hope: I have no doubt that there is a great deal in what the hon. Member says. We are looking at this matter.

Sir G. Nicholson: In the light of an earlier Question, may I ask whether my


right hon. Friend is satisfied not only that the descriptions of ancient monuments ranging from earthworks to ancient castles are scheduled but that a continuous watch is kept on them? For example, on the question of the destruction of earth-works, are the owners reminded at regular intervals that they have this responsibility to the nation?

Lord John Hope: I will look into the point raised by my hon. Friend about the regularity of the reminders.

Mr. H. Wilson: As a former Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry who took a great interest in these problems, may I ask whether the Minister does not feel, despite the dedicated service given to this kind of problem by the officials of the Ministry of Works, that all of us who have studied this matter owe a deep debt of gratitude to the Select Committee on Estimates, and particularly to my hon. Friend the Member for Widnes (Mr. MacColl) who presided over the inquiry and put the whole thing on a much more imaginative plane than has been done by the Ministry?

Lord John Hope: I am sorry about the "sting" in the tail of that supplementary question. There is a good deal in the first part with which I would agree.

Mr. P. Noel-Baker: On a paint of order, Mr. Speaker. Arising out of this Answer, and in order to give the House a chance to discuss the matter, I wish to give notice that after the Christmas Recess I shall try to raise the whole of this issue on the Adjournment.

Mr. Speaker: I think that such notice has to relate to a specific Answer to a Question, otherwise we shall run into trouble.

Mr. Noel-Baker: May I then give notice arising out of the Answer to my Question, No. 4?

Royal Opera House, Covent Garden

Mr. K. Robinson: asked the Minister of Works if he will take steps to acquire the freehold of the Royal Opera House, Covent Garden.

Lord John Hope: I understand that the Opera House is not in the market for sale at present and the question does not therefore arise.

Mr. Robinson: Would not the noble Lord agree that the present leasehold arrangements are wholly unsatisfactory from the point of view of the Covent Garden trustees and most uneconomic from the point of view of his Department and the Treasury? Is he aware that a year ago the previous Chancellor said that he would consider this matter seriously? Will the right hon. Gentleman have a talk with his right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer to see whether he can do a bit better this year? After all, there must be methods of acquiring this freehold whether it is in the market or not?

Lord John Hope: There may be possible methods of acquiring it, but whether they would be right or desirable methods to adopt is another matter. I will certainly look into the point made by the hon. Member vis-à-vis the Chancellor.

Christmas Tree, London (Norwegian Gift)

Mr. Delargy: asked the Minister of Works whether he will take steps to refund the Norwegian Government the sum incurred by them in lighting the Christmas tree given by them to the people of London.

Lord John Hope: I am glad to have this opportunity of correcting a misunderstanding. It was the specific wish of the City of Oslo that it should bear the whole cost of its generous gift including the lighting. There is therefore no question of a refund. The Chairman of the London Electricity Board has undertaken to supply current free of charge for lighting the tree this year and in future years.

Mr. Delargy: I am very glad to hear this. I am glad that this was a misapprehension. First, is the Minister aware that he has shaken my life-long and touching faith in the veracity of London newspapers? Secondly will the noble Lord ask his right hon. Friend the Prime Minister once again to express on behalf of all of us our thanks to this generous nation which was our ally in time of war and is our friend at all times?

Lord John Hope: I will gladly do so, and I am sure that the whole House will welcome what the hon. Gentleman has said.

Property (Acquisition)

Mr. H. Wilson: asked the Minister of Works in how many cases since 1st January, 1955, his Department has taken over land, works or underground storage, which was already under requisition, and the basis on which compensation has been calculated.

Lord John Hope: I assume that by "taken over" the right hon. Member is referring to acquisition both by agreement and under compulsory powers.
Since 1st January, 1955, five properties formerly held under requisition have been acquired by compulsory purchase, 80 freeholds have been acquired by agreement and 63 requisitions have been converted by agreement to leases.
Where freeholds have been acquired either by compulsion or agreement the basis of compensation was that provided in the Town and Country Planning Acts. Leases of buildings were negotiated on the basis of current market values.

Mr. Wilson: In cases where compulsory powers have been used and the legislation provides compensation on the basis of a willing buyer and a willing seller, does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that there is great injustice, since where a property has been held under requisition obviously its value is a great deal less when the Ministry uses compulsory powers than if it had been released, if only for a nominal period? Will he look into that again and see whether an amendment to the legislation is necessary?

Lord John Hope: Strictly speaking, I think I am right in saying that any criticism of the basis of compensation ought to be addressed to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government, but I shall certainly pass on to my right hon. Friend what the right hon. Member has said.

Mr. H. Wilson: asked the Minister of Works in how many cases where the premises of a productive concern, other than in agriculture, have been requisitioned for war purposes the Government have now acquired them on a permanent basis with the use of compulsory powers; and what basis has been used for compensating the undertaking concerned for loss of trade.

Lord John Hope: In the short time available I can give information only in respect of requisitions and purchases carried out by my Department on its own behalf.
The answer to the first part of the Question is "one"; and to the second part, that compensation was assessed by reference to the Acquisition of Land (Assessment of Compensation) Act, 1919, the Town and Country Planning Acts, 1947 and 1954, and the Requisitioned Land and War Works Acts, 1945 and 1948. The compensation thus assessed did not include an element for loss of trade since there is no statutory provision for such compensation.

Mr. Wilson: Does not that reinforce what I have said to the right hon. Gentleman about the need for an amendment of the legislation? If I give him details of certain cases where, on the face of it, there is great injustice, will he look at them with a view to the possible introduction of compensation? Is he aware that when a farm or a factory is taken over it is possible to set up business elsewhere, but in some cases where his Department has taken action it has meant the virtual extinction of a productive enterprise which by its nature cannot be transferred elsewhere?

Lord John Hope: I should be much obliged if the right hon. Member would let me have details of some of the examples of which he is thinking. I shall see if I can help.

Swansea Castle

Mr. Rees: asked the Minister of Works if he will make a statement on the future of Swansea Castle.

Lord John Hope: Yes, Sir. The owners of Swansea Castle, The Castle and Central Cinemas, Limited, have offered this important monument as a gift to the State and I have accepted their offer. Certain urgent first-aid repairs have already been carried out and we shall now proceed with a planned programme of clearance and permanent preservation work which will take some years.
As an integral part of the arrangement whereby the Ministry has accepted responsibility for the work and the cost of preserving the castle itself, Swansea


Corporation has given an undertaking to clear the surroundings of the castle and to lay them out at its expense, as and when this becomes possible, so as to show the castle to best advantage. I am sure that the castle when properly displayed will be a striking asset to the centre of Swansea and I am glad to have been able to co-operate with the local authority in this joint venture.

High Commissioner's Residence, Lagos

Sir J. Vaughan-Morgan: asked the Minister of Works what experience of designing buildings in the tropics the architect had who was appointed to design the residence of the High Commissioner in Lagos.

Lord John Hope: None, Sir.

Sir J. Vaughan-Morgan: In view of the adverse criticism that has been made about this building, and in view of the fact that some of the finest examples of contemporary architecture are in Nigeria, designed by a well-known British architect, does not my right hon. Friend agree that a most unfortunate choice was made?

Lord John Hope: No, I do not think it fair to say that. I should be very reluctant to agree with the proposition that one should necessarily or always choose an architect who has done something in that particular locality. Architects of high quality such as Mr. Lionel Brett are, I believe, capable of imaginative work even in areas with which they are not familiar.

Mr. Tilney: Could my right hon. Friend say whether the £110,000, which I understand will be the total cost, covers everything, including furniture? What was the original estimate?

Lord John Hope: The answer to the first part of that supplementary question is "Yes," but I will check it. If my hon. Friend will put down a Question about the last part, I will answer it.

Mr. J. Griffiths: Is it not a pity that this was done in this way, since in Ibadan there is a wonderful example of British architecture which shows real imagination? Why could not the same people do this in Lagos?

Lord John Hope: Of course, that is an arguable view. I do not dispute that, but equally I suggest to the right hon. Member that my previous Answer provides an arguable point.

Oral Answers to Questions — LOCAL GOVERNMENT

Thames Flood Barrier Project

Mr. Dodds: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs what progress has been made in the consultations with respect to the suggested Thames flood barrage.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Sir Keith Joseph): My right hon. Friend recently asked the local authorities and other statutory bodies most directly concerned for their views on certain aspects of the Thames flood barrier project. He hopes to have these very shortly.

Mr. Dodds: While thanking the Parliamentary Secretary for that reply, may I ask if he appreciates that a request was made at the beginning of May? Is he not aware that many people whose homes and lives are in jeopardy when there are serious floods are very worried about the lack of a sense of urgency in this matter? Is it not disgraceful that, although the Waverley Committee reported and suggested this form of barrier in 1953, we are almost on the threshold of 1961 and it is still a talking point? When is it to come to fruition, if ever?

Sir K. Joseph: This is a very complex matter. There was a meeting last week of all the interested bodies, the results of which will be reported to my right hon. Friend almost immediately.

Crime Prevention

Mr. Woodburn: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs whether he is aware that a contributory cause of successful burglaries is the failure to provide in otherwise sound premises proper locks and other precautions against illegal entry; and whether he will consider issuing a circular to all planning authorities urging them to make it a prerequisite of consent for


building that the advice of the Crime Prevention Department of the police should be complied with.

Sir K. Joseph: No, Sir. A condition of the kind suggested could not be regarded as proper to planning control.

Mr. Woodburn: Is the Minister aware that the public are becoming alarmed at the degree to which occupiers of premises are contributing to crime, and that the police regard some of the locks and precautions almost as an invitation to entry, providing considerable temptation, especially to youths, to start on a career of crime? Is it right that public money should be wasted because of contributory negligence on the part of banks and others who are not taking proper precautions to safeguard their premises?

Sir K. Joseph: As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said, this is more a matter for co-operation between owners of premises and the police. Planning powers and land use control powers are not suitable for this sort of thing.

Mr. Woodburn: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the police are very concerned about the lack of co-operation? Who is responsible for getting that co-operation? Surely the Government must take some steps in this matter?

Green Belt, Cheshire

Lieut.-Colonel Bromley-Davenport: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs whether he is aware of the concern felt by residents of Cheshire in view of the fact that a large number of applications to build on what may be green belt territory in Cheshire are being received by county authorities and that it is expected that this year the figure will be up by 25 per cent.; and whether, in view of the confusion, he will come to an early decision on the green belt proposals for Cheshire.

The Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs (Mr. Henry Brooke): I am aware of the concern felt by some residents in the part of Cheshire south of Manchester. Cheshire County Council sent in some time ago a sketch plan showing a green belt in this area, and it was

encouraged to submit proposals for including it in its county development plan. I am awaiting these proposals, which, I understand, I am shortly to receive from the council. In the meantime, it is applying in the area concerned the development control policy appropriate to a green belt.

Lieut.-Colonel Bromley-Davenport: Does my right hon. Friend realise that more and more of these applications to build on what might be green belt territory are pouring into county authorities in ever-increasing quantities all over the country? Would he agree that the longer these decisions are delayed the more our green belts will be destroyed?

Mr. Brooke: I am very anxious indeed to get decisions taken on the green belt, but I am sure that my hon. and gallant Friend will appreciate that there is no question here of my delaying a decision. There will be nothing before me until Cheshire County Council submits its proposals to me, which I hope it will shortly do.

Recreation and Entertainment

Mr. Swingler: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs if he will appoint a committee to investigate the extent to which local authorities have used their powers to promote recreation and entertainment and the ways in which they have done so, with a view to publishing a report and its recommendations.

Sir K. Joseph: My right hon. Friend has no reason to think that local authorities do not make good use of these powers.

Mr. Swingler: Is it not generally agreed that more help should be given from public funds to the arts and the promotion of recreation and sport? Is it not also a fact that very few local authorities have used to the full their powers under the Local Government Act? Does the Minister know the extent to which local authorities have used those powers? Could not such a committee show valuable experience gained by some local authorities which would encourage others to use these powers?

Sir K. Joseph: As to capital expenditure by local authorities, this has been


rising for several years. As to entertainment provided through the rates, both the need and provision vary greatly from locality to locality. On the whole subject, I think this is a question for the Minister of Education.

Atmospheric Pollution, Bromborough

Sir H. Oakshott: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs what representations he has received regarding damage to clothing and ill-effects on health resulting from dust containing sulphuric acid believed to have emanated from the power station at Bromborough, Cheshire; and what steps he proposes to take to prevent this pollution of the atmosphere.

Sir K. Joseph: A number of representations have been made to my right hon. Friend about the effects of acid smut emissions from this power station. The frequency of this type of emission at oil-fired power stations has been considerably reduced since power stations were brought under the Alkali Act in 1958, but the problem has not yet been fully solved. The Alkali Inspectorate is treating research and experiment in this field as a matter of importance and urgency.

Sir H. Oakshott: While I gladly acknowledge the efforts of the Alkali Inspectorate and of the officers of the Generating Board, nevertheless may I ask my hon. Friend to impress upon all concerned the necessity for finding a remedy for what is a serious and irritating nuisance to people who live near this power station?

Sir K. Joseph: I accept that and I assure my hon. Friend that research is being pressed on with by several teams all the time.

Planning Appeal, Basingstoke (Mrs. Bagley)

Mr. Denzil Freeth: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister far Welsh Affairs why he rejected the recommendation of his inspector with regard to the appeal by Mrs. K. G. N. Bagley, Basingstoke, File No. 1908/40620/108.

Mr. Brooke: For the reasons stated in the decision letter on Mrs. Bagley's

appeal, a copy of which was sent to my hon. Friend on 1st December.

Mr. Denzil Freeth: While thanking my right hon. Friend for sending me a copy of the said letter, may I ask whether he realises that he has refused this appeal on grounds which are explicitly denied in his inspector's report, and that his inspector has seen the site and the right hon. Gentleman has not? Will not my right hon. Friend, therefore, reconsider the matter and, possibly, spend a few hours of the Christmas Recess wandering with me through the beautiful village of Upton Grey?

Mr. Brooke: I have no authority to reconsider or review a decision I have taken on an appeal case. This was the second appeal. The first appeal was dismissed. It is true that on the second occasion my inspector—who is there to advise me but not to determine the issue—advised that the appeal should be allowed. However, it did not seem to me that there were sufficient grounds for altering the decision which I had reached on the first appeal.

Mr. Denzil Freeth: On a point of order. I beg to give notice that I shall raise this matter on the Adjournment at the earliest possible moment.

Orpington (Proposed Crematorium)

Mr. Sumner: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs what consideration has been given by his Department to the proposal for a crematorium in the Orpington district; whether he is aware that objections were expressed at a meeting convened by the Kent County Council on 31st October; and whether he will cause a public inquiry to be held.

Sir K. Joseph: No proposal is before us, but the Orpington Urban District Council has been told that, if planning permission is obtained, my right hon. Friend will be prepared to entertain an application under Section 1 of the Cremation Act, 1952. He knows that objections have been made and has asked the Kent County Council to tell him its views before taking a decision. He will then consider whether this is a case on which he should decide the planning issues himself after a public inquiry.

Site, Hyde (College of Further Education)

Mr. Blackburn: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs whether he is yet in a position to announce his decision about the site at Bowlacre, Hyde, for the proposed College of Further Education.

Sir K. Joseph: The decision has now been reached and a copy of the decision letter sent to the hon. Member.

Mr. Blackburn: I thank the hon. Gentleman.

Greater London (Report)

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs what further consideration has been given to the proposals for reorganising local government in the London area.

Mr. Brooke: Consideration of these proposals is proceeding along the lines indicated in the reply which I gave to a Question by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Surrey, East (Mr. Doughty) on 11th November.

Mr. Sorensen: Can the right hon. Gentleman give us some idea of the time programme for the implementation of these proposals?

Mr. Brooke: In my Answer on 11th November I said:
It is proposed to invite local authorities and other bodies principally concerned with the broad local government issues to put forward their views within the next three months."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 11th November, 1960; Vol. 629, c. 86.]
We shall then study them.

Royal College of Physicians (New Headquarters)

Mr. K. Robinson: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs if he is now prepared to authorise the London County Council to grant planning permission for the new headquarters of the Royal College of Physicians on the east side of Regent's Park.

Mr. Brooke: Yes, sir.

Mr. Robinson: I thank the Minister for giving us the opportunity to see the model in the Upper Waiting Hall last

week. May I ask him to accept the congratulations of hon. Members on this side of the House for approving a design which is brilliant and imaginative and blends very well with its surroundings?

Mr. Brooke: I am glad that I am giving so much satisfaction during my last Question day before Christmas.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSING

London (Workers' Requirements)

Mrs. Butler: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs what estimate he has made of the number of workers who both by reason of low income and the nature of their work require housing at a reasonable rent in the London area.

Mr. Brooke: The factors suggested in the Question are so indefinite that I do not think any useful estimate could be based on them.

Mrs. Butler: Is it not completely irresponsible for the Minister to allow private rents to soar, while curtailing council building for general needs, without this vital information? Is he aware that in Wood Green, which is typical, there are far too many, essential low-paid workers chasing too few low-rented homes? What does he intend to do about it, because this is a direct result of his policy?

Mr. Brooke: This is not a direct result of my policy. I am quite well aware that there are more people wishing to live in the London area than there is room for. Nevertheless, the kind of estimates for which the hon. Lady asks in her Question would really be of no value, because phrases such as "low income", "reasonable rent" and so forth, are not capable of exact definition.

Mr. M. Stewart: Does the Minister remember that he is always advising people who have rent difficulties in London that they should move out of London? How can he possibly know whether that is sensible advice unless he has formed some idea of how many people there are who have to live in London?

Mr. Brooke: I should have thought that it would be extremely helpful to


those people who have to live in London if I advised those who need not to move out.

Special Subsidies

Mrs. Butler: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs if he will revise the special subsidies for housing on expensive sites and housing for elderly people to meet the increased cost of housing land.

Mr. Brooke: I do not think such a revision is needed. There is already a separate subsidy for expensive sites, in addition to any subsidy for the dwellings erected on them. This expensive site subsidy is payable in all appropriate cases and varies according to the cost of the site, not according to the purpose for which the dwellings are to be used.

Mrs. Butler: Is the Minister aware that he has admitted the need for subsidies for elderly persons' houses, in particular, and since he has admitted that need, is it not reasonable that these subsidies should be increased commensurate with the phenomenal increase in the price of land over the last twelve months? Is he also aware that there is considerable uncertainty on the part of local authorities about what the present ceiling of the expensive site subsidy is?

Mr. Brooke: I do not understand why there should be any doubt in the minds of local authorities. There is no ceiling, except in one narrow class of cases. This expensive site subsidy varies according to the price of the land and, therefore, takes account of any increase in that price.

Land, London Area

Mr. M. Stewart: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs what survey he has made of land allocated for house building in the London region; and with what result.

Mr. Brooke: The London and Greater London local planning authorities are readily co-operating with my Department in a survey of the land available for residential development in the area surrounded by the Metropolitan Green Belt, and in existing towns situated within the Green Belt. The object is to

ensure the maximum use of land which is, or can be made, available for building.
The planning authorities concerned are also considering, in connection with the review of their development plans, what further land can be made available beyond the green belt. Completion of the reviews must take time, but the investigation is clearly underlining the need for those more immediate measures which I have recently suggested to local planning authorities in Circular 37/60.

Mr. Stewart: Am I right in supposing that land in this area which has been allocated for house building, but not yet built on, amounts to sufficient to meet the needs of the next two or three years? What is likely to happen after that? Further, am I right in thinking that a good deal of this land is now owned by companies which intend to build on it at some subsequent date? What will be the position of people who want to build their own houses to their own design?

Mr. Brooke: I am not quite sure what area the hon. Member is referring to, because here we have to consider not only the land on the inner side of the Green Belt but land on the outer side. I entirely agree that there is anything but unlimited building land available on the inner side of the Green Belt and, therefore, it is the more urgent that local authorities should follow up the suggestions I made in the Circular about encouraging conversions, redevelopment of older areas, review of densities, and so forth.

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs approximately how many properties used for domestic accommodation in the Metropolitan Police area or in the County of London have been or are being demolished for replacement by office or business buildings; approximately how many persons have been affected by this; and what information he has regarding the extent to which the price of land for house building purposes has risen during the past five years in either of those two areas in consequence of such demolition, or for other reasons.

Mr. Brooke: Although figures are not available, I have no reason to think that


any large-scale demolition of residential buildings to make way for offices has taken place in the County of London since 1955, when the Development Plan was approved. I have given, and will continue to give, my support to the policy of the local planning authority to preserve residential uses, wherever possible, and to curb excessive office building. I am now considering certain amendments to the County Development Plan which have been put to me with the purpose of strengthening this policy still further. I have no evidence that land in the County of London has increased in price as the result of the demolition of houses for office development.

Mr. Sorensen: Will not the right hon. Gentleman secure the information for which I ask in my Question? He cannot very well make judgments as to the future unless he has the information. It is very difficult for some of us to get the information we desire from him, because in reference to a previous Question from this side he argued that it was of too ambiguous a character, whilst he is now refusing to answer my Question because it is apparently too explicit.

Mr. Brooke: So little of this has been going on that I do not think it would justify the immense trouble involved in getting statistics from every local authority concerned. It is much more practical to proceed by way of getting on with the consideration of the review of the County of London Development Plan, which will include consideration of certain amendments for strengthening the retention of residential use still further.

Mr. Sorensen: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I shall raise the matter on the Adjournment at the earliest possible moment.

Peterlee

Mr. Shinwell: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs whether, in view of the failure of the Peterlee Corporation to reach its annual target of housing construction in 1959 and in the present year, the difficulty experienced through the failure of the principal contractor to meet his liabilities and the

claim of some creditors that they were requested to supply the contractors with materials by representatives of the Corporation, he will institute an inquiry into the relations between the Corporation and the contractor and the reasons why the housing target will not be reached.

Mr. Brooke: The core of the trouble at Peterlee is that a firm which put in the lowest tenders and was awarded certain house-building contracts has gone into liquidation. The supply of materials to the firm was a normal commercial transaction. I know of nothing that would justify me in holding an inquiry into these matters.

Mr. Shinwell: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is considerable disquiet in Peterlee and the adjoining area because of the curtailment of the housing programme, and that various allegations have been made about the transactions undertaken between representatives of the Corporation and the contractor referred to? Is there not something to be said for conducting a Departmental inquiry—not necessarily of a public character to begin with, unless something transpires which ought to be reported — in the interests of all concerned?

Mr. Brooke: I hope that if the right hon. Gentleman hears allegations of that character he will deny them. There is no truth in them whatever. A difficult situation has arisen here, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, through this firm having gone into liquidation before it completed its house-building contracts. I can certainly say that the special object of the Development Corporation and myself is to get those contracts completed as quickly as possible. I am seriously concerned lest a bad break in the completion of houses should occur.

Mr. Shinwell: When we are faced with a situation in which a contractor incurs liabilities of between £450,000 and £600,000, surely it is a matter for some inquiry?

Mr. Brooke: The liabilities that a particular firm incurs when it is carrying out a public contract are not, in my submission, necessarily a subject for a public inquiry, or an inquiry of any sort. It is a matter between the contractor and


the creditors. The firm is now in liquidation and no doubt all these matters are being pursued.

Council Houses (Rents)

Mr. Longden: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs if he will introduce legislation to ensure that local housing authorities shall normally charge the full economic rent for council houses, and that rent relief should be given only to those who genuinely need it and only for so long as they need it.

Mr. Brooke: I agree entirely with my hon. Friend that council rents should be subsidised only to the extent that the tenants need subsidy. The policies of the Government have been directed, with considerable success, to persuading local authorities to adopt an increasingly realistic attitude to rents. I do not think, however, that it would be right to legislate so as to take away from them their ultimate responsibility for their rent policy.

Mr. Longden: While thanking my right hon. Friend for part of his Answer, may I ask him whether he can advance one reason to justify a citizen who is not genuinely in need of it having his rent subsidised by the ratepayers and taxpayers at large? If local authorities will not respond to his encouragement to remedy this flagrant injustice, is it not high time that legislation was contemplated?

Mr. Brooke: I certainly have a very open mind about this, but I can assure my hon. Friend that an increasing number of local authorities are doing the sensible thing and establishing some kind of differential rent scheme. However, it would be extremely difficult to determine by legislation rents which local authorities should charge all over the country.

Mr. M. Stewart: The hon. Member for Hertfordshire, South-West (Mr. Longden) thanked the Minister for one part of his Answer. May I take the unusual course of thanking the right hon. Gentleman for the other half of it? Is he aware that in most cases the citizens in the areas concerned are better judges of what is a fair rent policy, in view of the difficulties imposed on them by the Minister, than is the hon. Gentleman?

Mr. Brooke: I hope that they will be very good judges at the next council elections.

Building Programmes

Mr. Mackie: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs what plans he has for speeding up housing, in view of the difficulties, particularly in north London boroughs, now confronting old people, newly-married people, and people living in overcrowded accommodation.

Mr. Brooke: My information is that most local authorities, in north London boroughs as elsewhere, are pressing ahead with house building as quickly as they can. They are limited by the present high level of demand on all sections of the building industry, and the keen competition for technical staff.

Mr. Mackie: Is the Minister aware of the tremendous difficulties facing Members of Parliament like myself who receive scores of appeals from old people, newly-married couples and people living in overcrowded conditions to do something about this? Does he not think that it is time for drastic action, by which I mean taking over land, directing building away from office building, and so on, to solve a problem which is causing more delinquency than anything else? Drastic action is required.

Mr. Brooke: The first initiative in taking over land compulsorily rests with the local authority concerned. The borough council in the constituency which the hon. Gentleman represents has a programme of 200 houses for this year; but, so far as I can see, I fear that the council will fall short of it. That is not my responsibility. It is the council's.

Rent Tribunals (Decisions)

Mr. Darling: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs if he will take powers to enable him to enforce decisions of local rent tribunals in cases where landlords have refused to accept such decisions and have threatened to evict tenants who refuse to pay higher rents than those permitted by the tribunals.

Mr. Brooke: Local authorities already have powers to institute proceedings


where an offence under the Furnished Houses (Rent Control) Act, 1946, has been committed. I do not think that further legislation is required.

Mr. Darling: Is the Minister aware that, although the Question is in the plural, it applies to only one case, namely, Regent Court in Sheffield, where I understand that the legal situation is very peculiar indeed? It is controlled property and the rent tribunal has fixed the rents only for the few tenants who do not come under the control arrangements. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that for six months the landlords have refused to accept any rents and are now threatening to evict the tenants who have offered the rents because they will not pay the price demanded by the landlords? In those circumstances, does he suggest that only the local authorities can take action?

Mr. Brooke: I was simply referring to Section 10 of the Act, which provides that no proceedings shall be instituted otherwise than by the local authority. If the Sheffield City Council considers that it has a good case and that the Act is being infringed, it is open to it to institute proceedings.

R.A.F. Station, Biggin Hill (Married Quarters)

Mr. Sumner: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs whether he is aware that the assurance given to the hon. Member for Orpington on 28th July, 1959, in a copy of a letter sent by him to the Kent County Council on 20th May, 1959, that the building of Royal Air Force officers' married quarters at Biggin Hill would not be carried out without consultation with the local planning authority has not been complied with; what action he now proposes to take in the matter; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Brooke: I understand from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Air that owing to a mistake the Air Ministry did not consult the Kent County Council as had been promised, and that a letter of apology was sent to the County Planning Officer on 7th September. I do not see that there is any action I can take in the circumstances.

COLONIAL DEPENDENCIES (COMMONWEALTH MEMBERSHIP)

Mr. Wall: asked the Prime Minister whether he has yet received a report from the Commonwealth Study Group about the problems of future Commonwealth membership by the smaller colonial dependencies.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Macmillan): Yes, Sir. The Study Group has submitted its report to the Governments of all the member countries of the Commonwealth.

Mr. Wall: Is it my right hon. Friend's view that as the smaller dependencies move towards independence they should be accepted as full members of the Commonwealth, or has he in mind some form of regionalisation of the Commonwealth?

The Prime Minister: This is a report confidentially prepared for the next meeting of the Commonwealth Prime Ministers. I prefer not to say anything more about it until that meeting has taken place.

HEADS OF GOVERNMENT

Mr. Wyatt: asked the Prime Minister whether he will propose to the President-Elect of the United States of America that steps should now be taken to initiate a meeting between the heads of Government of the United States of America, Russia and Great Britain.

The Prime Minister: No doubt when the new Administration in the United States takes office there will be a wide exchange of views with them which will cover such matters. It would not be appropriate for me to say more at the moment.

Mr. Wyatt: Will the Prime Minister bear in mind when he begins his next exercise in Summitry that we shall not get any lasting benefit from a Summit Meeting now unless the Chinese are included? Will he exercise his best endeavours to that end?

The Prime Minister: That is a point to be considered. I notice that the Question omits to mention the French Government, perhaps by accident. France is one of the four Powers responsible for the


settlement of the German question and must take part in any discussions of this kind.

RHODESIA AND NYASALAND

Mr. Wall: asked the Prime Minister if he will make a statement about the progress of the constitutional conference on the Federation of Rhodesia and Nyasaland.

The Prime Minister: The Federal Constitutional Review Conference opened on 5th December and, after eleven meetings, adjourned on 17th December. It will reconvene on a date in the New Year to be decided by the five Governments in the light of the progress made at the talks on the constitutions of Southern Rhodesia and Northern Rhodesia.
The proceedings were confidential, but I can say that this series of meetings provided an opportunity for the delegates to have a general debate on the Federation as a whole.
We shall study most carefully the views expressed by all delegates in this discussion, and we shall discuss with the other Governments concerned the conclusions to be drawn from them.

Mr. Wall: Can my right hon. Friend say whether it is still his intention to do everything possible to work for the maintenance of a federal structure?

The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir. We believe that the aims of the Federation, as founded, were sound and valuable, and that they remain so. The purpose of the Conference is to examine how far those aims have been realised, and what changes, if any, should be made in the future, but I hope that I may be allowed to say that the Conference, with all its difficulties, has done a most valuable work, and I feel that, at the end, the interchange of personal relations and discussions, not only in the full meetings but in private, have contributed something towards the ultimate solution of this very complicated question.

Mr. Callaghan: Is the Prime Minister aware that there will be general support for the procedure under which the resumption of the Federal Conference depends to some extent on the progress

made in the two Territorial Conferences? May I ask him whether any progress has been made, or any proposals put forward in relation to an extended franchise or representation for the Africans in the Federal Assembly? Until that is done, is it not extremely unwise to make speeches about holding the Federation together by force? Will the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that no British troops will be committed to such a foolish enterprise?

The Prime Minister: I think that it would be much wiser to proceed, as we generally agreed at the end of the Conference, with the two territorial negotiations and discussions. If those make great progress—and I have hopes of it—we are then in a very much better position, if and when the Conference reconvenes, to take up such questions as the general franchise and the powers as between the Federation and the parts. I think that the course we have followed in all the difficulties is, on the whole, the right one.

Mr. Callaghan: Is the Prime Minister aware that I subscribe to what he says but, in that case, is it not doubly stupid to make speeches about using force in the Federation?

The Prime Minister: Of course, all kinds of speeches and all kinds of statements are made by people at different times. What we have tried to do is to bring together the greatest amount of agreement, and I think that we have had some success in that respect.

Mr. Gaitskell: Is it not clear from what the Prime Minister himself has said that any prospect of progress in the Federal Conference is really dependent on prior agreement on constitutional advance in Northern Rhodesia and Southern Rhodesia? Does he anticipate that there will be such discussions on constitutional advance in the Federation itself before the Conference resumes? Secondly, in view of its immense importance, are Her Majesty's Government to be represented at the discussions on constitutional advance in Southern Rhodesia?

The Prime Minister: With regard to the second part of the right hon. Gentleman's supplementary question, the Secretary of State for Commonwealth


Relations is to answer a Question on Southern Rhodesia tomorrow, and I prefer to leave it to him. With regard to the first part of his supplementary question, we feel that the Federal Conference and the Territorial Conferences are very closely inter-related. The next step is the one we decided on; first, to make what progress we can in the two Territorial Conferences and then, in the light of that, to discuss the reconvening of the other Conference, or other negotiations that might take place in regard to the Federal question.

Mr. Dugdale: Can the Prime Minister say what kind of progress he is expecting in the Territorial Conferences? How much progress has there to be before the other talks begin—or has he not been able to discover quite how they are proceeding?

The Prime Minister: I do not think that if I went beyond what I have said I would be helping what we hope to do.

HIGHER EDUCATION (COMMITTEE)

Mrs. White: asked the Prime Minister if he will now give the composition and terms of reference of the Committee which is to inquire into higher education.

The Prime Minister: I am happy to say that Professor Lord Robbins has found it possible to accept the chairmanship of the Committee.
The terms of reference will be as follows:
To review the pattern of full-time higher education in Great Britain and in the light of national needs and resources to advise Her Majesty's Government on what principles its long-term development should be based. In particular, to advise, in the light of these principles, whether there should be any changes in that pattern, whether any new types of institution are desirable and whether any modifications should be made in the present arrangements for planning and co-ordinating the development of the various types of institution.
The long-term development of universities, colleges of advanced technology, certain other colleges of further education and teacher training colleges, will be within these terms of reference.
I am not yet in a position to give the full composition of the Committee, but

the membership will include people with first-hand knowledge of various aspects of higher education in Great Britain. I will make a further announcement as soon as possible.

Mrs. White: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Labour Party first asked for this inquiry in 1953, and has been asking for it at intervals ever since; and that we are, therefore, delighted that Her Majesty's Government have at last caught up with us? In considering the composition of the Committee, will the right hon. Gentleman take into account the consumers—in other words, the students—and see that they also have some representation?

The Prime Minister: I will consider that. Naturally, I am very tempted to the position taken by the hon. Lady, but I think that, on the whole, I would prefer to leave the student question. What we have to do is to get a very broad representation, and in doing so, we have tried to deal with all the various possible groups that ought to be considered.

BRITISH FIRMS (UNITED STATES OWNERSHIP)

Mr. Wyatt: asked the Prime Minister whether he will discuss with Senator Kennedy, at their forthcoming meeting, the extent to which British firms are partly or wholly owned by United States interests, and the consequent effect on British industry and Anglo-American relations.

The Prime Minister: No meeting with Mr. Kennedy has yet been arranged. If, as I hope, such a meeting takes place, I will bear this matter in mind, should it seem worth while to discuss it.

Mr. Wyatt: Although the Prime Minister no doubt thinks it very funny—[HON. MEMBERS: "No—we do."],—is he not aware that quite apart from the Ford affair, which was not so significant to our economy, there is, for example, the American-owned Standard Telephone Company, which is the largest single supplier in the ring that supplies telephones to the Post Office, and that it is thought by many concerned in the industries connected with telecommunications that that firm is now advising Her Majesty's Government not to


have their own communications satellite system, but to wait for the Americans to provide the equipment—so that the Americans can make all the money out of it, and we shall lose a great deal? Will the Prime Minister look into that?

The Prime Minister: This is a question of the free interchange of capital. On the whole, I think that the fact that there is a free movement of capital is a sign of a progressive economy in the world, and a good thing, and if we in this country were to be examined as to our capital investments all over the world—including the United States—we might find ourselves embarking on a very perilous journey if we were to question them.

EUROPEAN COMMON MARKET AND EUROPEAN FREE TRADE ASSOCIATION

Mr. Healey: asked the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the official discussions concerning closer co-operation between the European Common Market and the European Free Trade Association.

The Prime Minister: We have taken part in a number of informal and exploratory talks with interested Governments during recent months. In particular, following my visit to Bonn and discussions there with Chancellor Adenauer in August, we have had two rounds of exploratory talks with the German Government, designed to see whether a basis for more formal negotiations can be found. These talks have made useful progress. For the reasons given by my right hon. Friend the Lord Privy Seal on 4th November, I hope that the House will not expect me to say more about the results of these talks. Europe cannot risk another attempt to reach agreement which ends in failure; and, for the present, I am sure that we are all agreed that we should continue to explore the possibilities patiently in confidential discussions.

Mr. Healey: While agreeing to some extent with the latter part of the right hon. Gentleman's remarks, may I ask whether he will agree, now that the six months' grace we were offered in June runs out in a week's time, that the House deserves a little more information than that about the general form that discussions

are taking. In particular, can he tell the House whether there is any truth in the reports that we are discussing an arrangement under which the Six and the Seven would have a common external tariff, and that, so far, no insuperable technical objection has been offered to this type of approach?

The Prime Minister: I am grateful for what the hon. Gentleman says. I know that he realises the difficulty and complication—and even delicacy—of these discussions. I think that it would be unwise for me to comment on any particular proposal, because the result might be just what we did not want to happen. I would, therefore, prefer to assure the hon. Gentleman that we are pressing forward with these discussions, and still hope that we shall reach a point at which a useful negotiation, as apart from exploratory discussion, can be entertained.

Mr. Holt: May I ask the Prime Minister to clarify the actual direction of Government policy in Europe? Is it to make an association with the Six, or to get Britain's entry into it? There is some confusion about this, because paragraph 38 of the agricultural White Paper issued yesterday says:
The Government … would not favour an unconditional entry into the Community"?
Are we to infer from this that they would, in fact, like entry into the Community provided that it was not unconditional?

The Prime Minister: We have had debates on this at considerable length, and I think the positions of the Government and the Opposition on the matter have been very close together. We want to see a European Community develop on sound lines, but we have the problem of the Commonwealth, we have our agriculural problem, and we have our commitments to the Seven. What we are working for, therefore, is something, whether it be the whole solution or a partial solution, which tends to maximise, the trade of Europe and not to reduce it.

Mr. Gaitskell: Will the Prime Minister say whether the conversations which he said are taking place are of a multilateral character, or are they simply between representatives of Great Britain and France and Germany?

The Prime Minister: At present, they are bilateral in character in each case.

Mr. Grimond: Will the Prime Minister give an answer to the main question? Granted that negotiations with the Six must, of course, take place under the Treaty of Rome, do the Government want to go into the Common Market if the negotiations are successful? He is always talking about interdependence and saying how splendid it is, but he always refuses to do anything particular about it.

The Prime Minister: We have repeatedly declared that, although the difficulties, which are well known to the House, prevent us from acceding to the Treaty of Rome as it now stands, we do not regard the problems raised as insuperable and we believe that they can, with good will, be overcome.

Mr. Gaitskell: May we take it that our partners in the Seven are being kept informed of these talks, and will the Prime Minister say with what other countries the bilateral talks are taking place?

The Prime Minister: We have, of course, very carefully informed our partners at every stage, at meetings on other subjects which have provided an opportunity and, of course, through the ordinary diplomatic channels. We carefully do that. There have been these discussions primarily with the Germans because they were to try to work out some scheme with us, and we have had discussions also, as I think the Lord Privy Seal said, with the Italians and some preliminary discussions with the French.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. Gaitskell: May I ask the Leader of the House to state the business for the first week after the Recess?

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. R. A. Butler): Yes, Sir. The business when the House resumes after the Christmas Recess will be as follows:
TUESDAY, 24TH JANUARY—Second Reading of the Overseas Service Bill and Committee stage of the necessary Money Resolution.
Second Reading of the Diplomatic Immunities (Conferences with Commonwealth Countries and Republic of Ireland) Bill.
WEDNESDAY, 25TH JANUARY—Second Reading of the Post Office Bill, and of the Agricultural Research, etc. (Pensions) Bill, and Committee stage of the necessary Money Resolutions.
THURSDAY, 26TH JANUARY—Second Reading of the Trustee Investment Bill [Lords.]
FRIDAY, 27TH JANUARY—Consideration of Private Members' Bills.
MONDAY, 30TH JANUARY—The Proposed Business will be a debate on the White Paper relating to the Reorganisation of the Nationalised Transport Undertakings.
The White Paper is to be made available in the Vote Office later today.

Mr. Gaitskell: Does not the right hon. Gentleman feel that the business he has just announced for the first week after the Recess is of a singularly dull character and is hardly appropriate to the kind of situation which we shall be confronting at that time? We are to go away for a month's Recess. The economic situation is disturbing, and there are problems all over the world which need our attention. Will the right hon. Gentleman consider representations nearer the end of the Recess to change the business if the circumstances make that necessary?

Mr. Butler: I would not say that the list I have read is unduly dull. There is the reform of the Post Office and a series of interesting Measures. There is a day reserved for consideration of Private Members' Bills, which has been expressly done. I would not have thought that the debate on Monday, 30th January, on the reorganisation of the nationalised transport undertakings would be uninteresting. Naturally, we shall bear everything in mind, which is what we like to do during the Recess.

Mr. Gaitskell: Will the right hon. Gentleman try to raise his standards of dullness a little in future and say that the House of Commons may discuss things which really interest the nation as well as merely getting the business through?

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: Has my right hon. Friend given further consideration to the possibility of holding a debate on economic affairs in which Members of the House can give their views on the structure of taxation, one of the most important aspects of our public life, well in advance of the Budget?

Mr. Butler: We had an economic debate immediately after the debate on the Address, and we had a financial debate yesterday; but I will certainly bear in mind what my noble Friend says.

Mr. S. Silverman: Without undertaking that if my request were granted that would necessarily introduce any undue enlivenment into the business for the first week after the Recess, may I remind the right hon. Gentleman that there is a subject which, while not of world importance, is of some importance to the House, which has been standing on the Order Paper for some time and which he, I think, agrees will some day have to be discussed, but for which no time has yet been provided? I refer, of course, to the Motion about his responsibilities as Home Secretary in the exercise of the Prerogative of mercy in two recent death penalty cases. Has he in view any time at which this Motion can be discussed?

[That this House places on record its profound regret that the Secretary of State for the Home Department failed to advise Her Majesty the Queen to exercise Her Royal Prerogative of mercy in the cases of Francis Forsyth and Norman Harris, the first of whom was only a month or two over eighteen years of age and the other twenty-three years of age, both of whom were said by the learned counsel who prosecuted them to have had no intention to kill, and one of whom, namely, Norman Harris, was admitted to have struck no blow and was not present when any fatal act of violence was committed.]

Mr. Butler: It is certainly not included, as I have announced, in the business when we come back. The hon. Gentleman has spoken with moderation, and I will do so, too. I do not at the moment see any opportunity, but I realise the importance of the subject.

Mr. C. Pannell: Is the right hon. Gentleman seized of the importance, urgency and necessity of bringing before the House at the earliest possible date the report on the breakdown of the electrification of various branches of the railways throughout the country, bearing in mind that this is not a matter of ideological considerations as between nationalisation and private ownership, but one affecting the prestige of the British engineering industry throughout the world? When we have the report, will he consider giving an opportunity for us to debate it?

Mr. Butler: My right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport, in answer to Questions yesterday, indicated that the report would be brought forward as soon as possible and would first be published. We must give time for this to occur, and I am sure that we would all like to consider it without any particular prejudice in our minds.

KENYA (SECURITY OF LAND TITLES)

The Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Iain Macleod): At the Lancaster House Conference there were proposals from all the delegates for the enactment of a code to protect the fundamental rights of the individual, including his rights in property. Her Majesty's Government then undertook to provide for the judicial protection of human rights in the new Constitution.
Her Majesty's Government have noted increasing recognition among Kenya political leaders of the need for measures and policies which will encourage the expansion of local and overseas investment. We welcome this recognition because without security and confidence private investment in agriculture and industry will not take place, and it will be extremely difficult also to proceed with resettlement schemes in any part of the territory for peasant and yeoman farmers. Unless these new African farmers, under settlement schemes, are assured of continuity and security of title, it is unlikely that any will take up land which will be offered by the Settlement Board. Security of title to land is an essential prerequisite to confidence and to renewed investment and the full use and settlement of the land. This, of


course, is a problem not confined to one race only, nor only to agricultural titles. As a result of land consolidation under the Swynnerton Plan, there are already over 145,000 African farmers with registered titles. Outside the coast, there are over 11,000 agricultural titles held mostly by non-Africans and over 17,000 residential, commercial and industrial titles spread among all races. At the coast, registered titles exceed 16,000. If confidence is to be won and maintained, all these must be fully secure.
Her Majesty's Government have now completed their examination of methods of ensuring this security both up to and after independence. Detailed provisions designed for the protection of all rights, including rights in property, have now been included in the new Constitution. The results of this study will be taken into account also in any further discussions on further constitutional advance, since the continued protection of fundamental rights, including rights in property, will inevitably be an essential part of those discussions. Indeed, such protection for all individuals without regard to race, tribe or religion follows naturally from the general acceptance of the right of all to stay and take part, without fear of discrimination or victimisation, in the public and economic life of the country. Her Majesty's Government consider it is their duty to promote the general acceptance of these rights.

Mr. Callaghan: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that every hon. Member will want the maximum stability and confidence in Kenya during the transitional months which lie ahead? It is certainly our hope that the maximum investment and confidence in the territory will be preserved. However, can he explain his rather puzzling statement a little more clearly? Is there something new about it? Is it designed to put Africans on notice that, if there is to be any change in the Constitution, Her Majesty's Government will come forward with some new proposals, or is it no more than a statement designed to allay whatever uneasiness may at present exist in Kenya?

Mr. Macleod: If it were designed only to do the latter, it would be of importance. It is enormously important that we should do what we can, and I

welcome what the hon. Gentleman has said. Anxiety certainly exists, not only among Europeans, but among all races in Kenya and in East Africa.
To sum up what I have said in my statement: first, we are now entrenching in Orders in Council, which are in the Library of the House, provisions against compulsory acquisition except for the ordinary public purposes, and making it a requirement that there shall be payment of full compensation, which can be assessed by the courts: secondly, we are saying that when the time comes to consider further constitutional advance, we would also wish to consider, in conjunction with all the delegates at the conference, problems of property and title which affect confidence throughout Kenya for men of all races; thirdly, we would think it right at the appropriate time to make provision in the legislation of that time for the sort of approach which I have indicated in my statement.

Sir H. Oakshott: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, by stating publicly his recognition of the importance of the security of title in restoring confidence and encouraging investment, he will have a great deal of support, not only here, but among people in Kenya who, as he knows, have been very worried recently? My right hon. Friend referred in his statement to the stage after independence. Has he yet any details of the sort of measures he has in mind to cover the points raised in his statement at that stage of development in Kenya?

Mr. Macleod: No. I entirely agree with the first part of what my hon. Friend said. I do not think that it would be appropriate to discuss the second part, because it is hypothetical on the assumption that something may well go wrong afterwards. We have discussed this matter closely in the Government, as the third paragraph of my statement makes clear, and we have completed our examination of methods of ensuring security. There are various ways in which one can entrench by agreement, as, for example, the Cyprus Constitution showed, and of securing legal force for the sort of provisions I have indicated.

Mr. Callaghan: I follow that, but does the right hon. Gentleman propose to state what are these methods he has


in mind? Does he propose to publish them? Do they involve questions of legal rights, or is there some question of a financial obligation being borne by the British taxpayer?

Mr. Macleod: No. The question of a financial obligation, in a way, raises a rather different point. There are considerable schemes of development and resettlement which are being entered into and the total cost of which is about £9 million. We have made a contribution through the Colonial Development and Welfare Fund and a direct contribution of £3·15 million. We have, I think, interested the International Bank in this and also missions from friendly Western European countries. Germans, Dutch and Swiss are going or have been to Kenya. Concerning the position after independence, I would hope that we could achieve by agreement before independence something very like the provisions in the Orders in Council which are in the Library and which the hon. Gentleman will be able to study.

Mr. McAdden: Is my right hon. Friend aware how much satisfaction the statement he has made will give to those in Kenya who have contributed much, both in life and in treasure, to trying to build up the resources of Kenya and its export rate to the extent it has reached? Does he also realise that it will give great satisfaction, not only in this House but in Kenya, that my right hon. Friend, in spite of all that has been said about him in recent weeks, has recognised how important is the contribution which they have made?

Mr. Macleod: I have always recognised the importance of this problem. The difficulty is in putting on paper something practical which one can do about it. I recognise that there is substance in what the hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) said about the vagueness, in part, of what I have said. What I hope to achieve for the future and for all time—that is, up to and after independence—is the sort of provisions which Section 10 of the Order in Council provides.

Mr. Wade: The Minister referred to the protection of human rights. Do I understand that that includes such fundamental rights as freedom of expression

of opinion and freedom of association? Is it intended that a new Convention of Human Rights will be incorporated in the proposed new Constitution?

Mr. Macleod: A Bill of Rights is being enacted covering the general problem of human rights, but I am dealing this afternoon only with property rights.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: We cannot debate this matter now.

N.A.T.O. COUNCIL MEETING

The Lord Privy Seal (Mr. Edward Heath): With your permission, Mr. Speaker, and that of the House, I will make a short statement on the N.A.T.O. Council Meeting.
This was the regular December meeting of the Council, and the communiqué which was issued and which I will circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT shows the wide range of subjects discussed.
The main business of this year's meeting was to discuss the long-range planning of the Alliance, in all its aspects, and particularly on the military side. As the House is aware, the United States Government have been giving thought to the need to strengthen the N.A.T.O. Alliance and to the problem of keeping up to date the deterrent and defensive forces of N.A.T.O. in the coming years. With these objectives in mind, the United States Secretary of State outlined to the Council the concept of a multilateral M.R.B.M. force for N.A.T.O. He put this forward for discussion and consideration, and not for immediate decisions.
At the same time, and as a first step towards the objectives he has in mind, Mr. Herter announced his Government's intention to commit to N.A.T.O. five Polaris submarines before the end of 1963. It was made clear that these five submarines would operate in accordance with existing procedures. Thus no change in the control arrangements for nuclear forces is involved. He also gave an assurance that the United States intended not to withdraw from the N.A.T.O. area American nuclear weapons allotted to N.A.T.O.
The Permanent Representatives will now study the whole problem of the


N.A.T.O. defence capability in the light of the United States suggestions. The study will include an examination of the purposes, control and development of N.A.T.O.'s nuclear armoury. This is a point to which my noble Friend the Foreign Secretary and my right hon. Friend the Minister of Defence drew particular attention.
As regards non-military matters, it was agreed that the North Atlantic Treaty itself requires no amendment but that fuller use should be made of the machinery we now have, especially with a view to improving political consultation between member countries. This, too, will be worked out by the Permanent Representatives on the basis of a report by the Secretary-General and other suggestions made during the meeting. It will be further considered at the Ministerial meeting in Oslo next May.

Mr. G. Brown: First, is the Lord Privy Seal aware that we are still without any indication of what are the Government's views on a multilateral M.R.B.M. force for N.A.T.O. which he says the Americans put forward for discussion? If we put forward views during the discussion, will he tell the House what they were? Secondly, on the question of the American proposal to commit five Polaris submarines before the end of 1963, the right hon. Gentleman specifically made it clear that this will be in accordance with existing procedures—that is, for deployment and for control. In other words, they would seem to remain part of the American forces under American control. Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us what this means from the point of view of the alliance? Is it anything other than a proposal, a device, for spreading in Europe part of the cost which would otherwise fall on the Americans?
Concerning the proposed study of the purposes, control and deployment of the N.A.T.O. nuclear armoury, I think I speak for the whole House in saying that we welcome that very much. As this is the season of good will, perhaps I might be permitted to welcome the partial conversion of the Minister of Defence to the point of view put forward from this bench, particularly when he told his N.A.T.O. colleagues that weapons should fit strategy and not strategy be made to fit weapons.
Arising from that, however, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether, in the inquiry, it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government to press for the raising of the nuclear threshold to a higher level than that at present envisaged? If that is true, why did we oppose the American Government's proposals for drawing back nuclear weapons from the forward line, which we and the Germans were the only ones to oppose?

Mr. Heath: At the meeting, Her Majesty's Government's representative did not express any firm view concerning the multilateral force for N.A.T.O. because the Americans put this forward as a concept later to be examined by the permanent representatives. We will play our full part in examining this proposal, but it would have been premature to put forward firm and clear views at the discussion in Paris.
Secondly, on the question of status, as announced by Mr. Herter, these submarines are committed to N.A.T.O. and, therefore, under the present arrangements the thermonuclear element remains under American control. In that way, it is exactly similar to the other thermonuclear elements. The right hon. Gentleman asked whether this was a matter of putting the cost on to Europe. That is not as we understand it. The cost of this is borne by the American Administration—that is, the cost of the Polaris submarines.

Mr. Callaghan: And the missiles?

Mr. Heath: And of the missiles. That is the position as I understand it. The question of raising the threshold is a matter which will have to be discussed in the whole examination of the project which I have just announced.

Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett: May I ask my right hon. Friend exactly what is meant by the expression "multilateral force"? Does it mean an integrated force? Who will have custody of the nuclear warheads? Have Her Majesty's Government reason to think that the incoming American Administration is in any way committed by these proposals?

Mr. Heath: Mr. Herter put forward the proposal as an American concept, the details of which still have to be examined. The points which my hon. and gallant Friend has raised are matters


which must be sorted out by the permanent representatives. It remains to be seen what will be the attitude of the next Administration as expressed through its permanent representative after taking power.

Mr. Shinwell: Is the Minister telling the House that the United States Government have made an offer of five Polaris submarines with missiles at their expense while, at the same time, they have approached N.A.T.O. and the countries associated with N.A.T.O. asking that those countries should bear a larger proportion of defence costs? How does the right hon. Gentleman reconcile those two statements? Can we understand from what the Minister has said that any further obligation which is imposed upon the United Kingdom as a result of any agreement reached by N.A.T.O. will not be accepted until hon. Members have had an opportunity of debating the matter?

Mr. Heath: The American Government have put forward this as an earnest of their intention of strengthening the defence of N.A.T.O. in Europe. Concerning the question of a debate in the House, obviously it will take time for the permanent representatives to examine these detailed and complicated proposals. I am certain that there will be further opportunities of debating the matter.

Mr. W. Yates: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, both in this House and outside, we are not in the least interested in the proposals made by the Republican Government of the United States and that we look forward to the arrival of the new Government, when more sensible proposals will be made?

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Manuel.

Mr. Gaitskell: Will the right hon. Gentleman at least answer the question of what Mr. Herter meant by "multilateral force"?

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am sorry, but I called the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Manuel) before the Leader of the Opposition rose.

Mr. Manuel: Thank you for that honour, Mr. Speaker. With regard to

this American concept which has now been offered for consideration by the N.A.T.O. Powers and the concept of five new Polaris submarines with missiles plus, I think, another 100 missiles, will the right hon. Gentleman give the House a firm pledge that we shall not advocate more Polaris bases in this country until the House has an opportunity to debate the question?

Mr. Heath: The question of further Polaris bases in this country was not raised at the N.A.T.O. conference. That is an entirely separate question.

Mr. Speaker: We are getting into an even worse situation. No answer has yet been given to the question asked by the Leader of the Opposition.

Mr. Gaitskell: I was asking for more information from the Lord Privy Seal, since he seemed unable to answer the question of his hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Croydon, North-East (Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett) about a multilateral force. Did not the right hon. Gentleman question Mr. Herter about the meaning of this, and could he not tell us what the answer was?

Mr. Heath: Mr. Herter put forward the information with his concept that this would be a force over which the countries of Europe would have a greater degree of control than under the present arrangements. At the same time, he pointed out that this would need a change in American legislation. He was quite clear and plain about that, as, indeed, Ministers speaking from this Box were quite plain in the debate at the beginning of last week.
As for the remarks by my hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin (Mr. W. Yates), it is a matter for commendation that the present American Administration and its President, who had given an undertaking to N.A.T.O. earlier to examine the project and put forward proposals, should have done so at this meeting.

Mr. Kershaw: Is my right hon. Friend aware that many of us have great difficulty in understanding in what sense the Polaris is a tactical weapon? Will he bear in mind that the methods of control hitherto in use have worked extremely


well for ten years and that we should be slow to change them except for something very much better?

Mr. Heath: This proposal by the American Secretary of State was put forward within the present terms of reference of the Supreme Commander. As the Supreme Commander himself has stated and as this House knows, there is no strategic element in the terms of reference.

Mr. G. Brown: As on each of these important issues the Minister has said that Her Majesty's Government have no views, how is the British permanent representative to play any part in the examination by the permanent representatives?

Mr. Heath: I have not said that the Government have no views. I have said that we shall play our full part in the examination of this study. We can do that when those who are putting forward the proposals describe the details to the Council of Permanent Representatives. We shall then examine them carefully and put forward our own views on each proposal.

Mr. Grimond: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that many of us feel that one of the most serious things about the present situation in N.A.T.O. is the situation of its conventional forces? Does the total absence of any reference to conventional forces in the Minister's statement mean that they were not discussed? Secondly, as to the rather cryptic phrase that Mr. Herter announced his intention to commit five Polaris submarines to N.A.T.O., are we to understand that the meeting accepted this intention and accepted the submarines? If so, the first step appears to have been taken towards creating a strategic N.A.T.O. nuclear deterrent. This is an extremely important matter.

Mr. Heath: The reference to conventional weapons is in paragraph 6 of the communiqué. I did not include all the matters from the communiqué in the brief statement which I have made. Concerning the Secretary of State's announcement about commitments, no decisions of any kind were taken at the N.A.T.O. meeting about any of these matters.

Mr. Wigg: Will the right hon. Gentleman turn his mind from conceptions which have not yet been conceived—and even if they are, may yet be abortive—to the annual review of N.A.T.O., which was not in the least bit impressed by the matters to which he has referred, but was very concerned to evaluate the British Forces in the Rhine Army? Is it not the case that it came to the conclusion that our seven brigade groups are so lacking in hitting power and in services that they do not equal three divisions, and that 75 per cent. of them are below establishment?

Mr. Heath: This matter was raised in the debate on defence on Tuesday of last week. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Defence and I pointed out that the object of the British Government is to bring the British Forces up to the standards of equipment and mobility required by the Supreme Commander for conventional forces.

Mr. Speaker: We cannot pursue this matter further now, with no Question before the House.

The following is the text of the final communiqué of the N.A.T.O. Ministerial Meeting:

"The regular Ministerial session of the North Atlantic Council was held in Paris from December 16 to 18, 1960.

2. The Ministers engaged in an extensive review of the international situation—political, military and economic. In pursuance of decisions previously taken, they also considered the question of long-term planning on the basis of a progress report from the Secretary-General and suggestions put forward by Governments.

I

3. The Council reaffirmed the solidarity of the Alliance and their dedication to the principle of the settlement of all disputes by peaceful means, without recourse to the use of force or threats. They declared their determination to work for a lasting improvement in international relations, in which freedom, national independence and law would be respected. This would be true peaceful co-existence free from all idea of world domination.

4. The Council deplored the lack of progress during the past year on disarmament, resulting from the Communist States withdrawal from the Ten-Power Conference before even examining the Western proposals, the Council reaffirmed their support for the principles expressed in those proposals as a basis for attaining their common objective of general and complete disarmament by stages under effective international control. They expressed their hope for the early resumption of negotiations.

5. The Council regretted the lack of progress on the reunification of Germany on the basis of self-determination. With regard to Berlin, the Council reaffirmed their declaration of December 16, 1958. In face of the recent Soviet threats and harassing tactics, they once again declared their determination to protect the freedom of the people of West Berlin.

II

6. In order that the Atlantic Alliance may pursue its constructive purposes in peace and without fear, confronted as it is by the menace of growing Communist military strength, the North Atlantic nations must be able to respond to any attack with whatever force might be appropriate. There must be a proper balance in the force of the Alliance of nuclear and conventional strength to provide the required flexibility. The Ministers, in the light of the annual review, took note of the progress which had been made, and expressed their determination to continue their efforts to improve the deterrent and defensive strength of the Alliance.

7. In this connexion, the United States Government suggested the concept of an MRBM multilateral force for consideration by the Alliance. The Council took note of the United States suggestion with great interest and instructed the permanent representatives to study the suggestion and related matters in detail.

The Council welcomed the assurance of the United States to maintain in the N.A.T.O. area United States nuclear weapons made available to N.A.T.O.

8. At the same time, the Council agreed on the equal importance of strengthening the shield forces of N.A.T.O. in other respects so that there can be not possibility of miscalculation or misunderstanding of the Alliances' determination and ability to resist aggression by whatever means are appropriate and necessary.

9. The Ministers noted with satisfaction the steps so far taken in response to the proposals made by Defence Ministers in Spring, 1960, in the field of logistics and for co-operation in research, development and production of military equipment. They urged all parties concerned to press on with the projects already selected, and to study what further projects are suitable for co-operative action.

III

10. The Ministers examined the report submitted to them on long-term planning, in particular with regard to political consultation and economic problems.

11. They reaffirmed their determination to pursue within the Alliance comprehensive political consultation designed to achieve the closest possible co-ordination of their views and unity of action. They studied ways and means of achieving this result.

12. In the economic field, they welcomed the creation of the O.E.C.D. which, by promoting balanced economic growth and the expansion of world trade, will benefit all the nations of the free world.

13. They emphasised the importance they attach to the development of the less-favoured countries of the Alliance.

14. Comprising as they do many of the more industrially developed countries, the Atlantic nations recognise their special responsibility in the field of aid to underdeveloped countries.

15. The Ministers instructed the permanent representatives to follow up previous studies to enable the countries of the Alliance to watch the development of the Communist economic offensive and to concert the necessary defensive measures.

16. The Secretary-General was invited to draw up a report on these various questions which will be examined at the spring ministerial meeting of the North Atlantic Council.

17. This meeting will take place, at the invitation of the Norwegian Government, in Oslo, in May, 1961."

BAHRAINI PRISONERS (ST. HELENA)

Mr. Stonehouse: With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I desire to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 9, for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance; namely, the refusal of Her Majesty's Government to grant political asylum to Mr. Rahman al Baker and two other political prisoners, now detained on St. Helena, and who are about to be returned to Bahrain, where the normal processes of law do not apply and where the freedoms of speech and association are not recognised.
There is no dispute about the facts of the case. In answer to a Question which I put to him yesterday, the right hon. Gentleman the Lord Privy Seal indicated that these three men were about to be returned to Bahrain. In answer to a Question from his hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin (Mr. W. Yates), he replied:
There can be no question of political asylum for the men who are detained.
When he was asked if he would make a statement to the House before the Recess, he replied:
I shall have nothing further to say to the House before we rise for the Recess."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 19th December, 1960; Vol. 632, c. 878.]
May I refer you, Mr. Speaker, on the question of the public importance of this matter, to the editorial in The Times of


3rd June, which dealt in some detail with the case? It concluded:
Meanwhile, with the hearing completed, a gesture of clemency to the St. Helena prisoners would be widely welcomed.
May I also refer you to an interesting article in—

Mr. Speaker: I cannot allow the hon. Member to make the speech which he would make if I gave him leave to move the Adjournment of the House.

Mr. Stonehouse: May I put it this way? There have been many Press references to the case. There is one in the Guardian today which refers to the anxiety of the legal advisers of the Bahraini prisoners to apply for a writ of habeas corpus.
May I also refer you to the great anxiety expressed about the case not only in this country but overseas, in particular in Middle Eastern countries? May I also submit to you that the attention of the world is now on these three prisoners and that if they are returned to Bahrain they will—

Mr. W. Yates: —have their heads chopped off.

Mr. Stonehouse: As the hon. Member says, they will have their heads chopped off. If they are returned in these circumstances it will be a stain on the record of this country in these matters.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman must not make his speech now. I will consider his proposed Motion in due course.

Mr. Stonehouse: I submit, Mr. Speaker, that this matter is urgent, because we rise for the Recess tomorrow and Her Majesty's Government have already announced that arrangements are being made to transfer Mr. Baker and his friends to Bahrain, and there may not be an opportunity, therefore, for the House to consider this question as we will not be available to hear a Ministerial statement on the matter.

Mr. Warbey: I support this submission.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for Ashfield (Mr. Warbey) is out of order in doing so.

Copy of Motion handed in.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member has asked for leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 9, for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance; namely:
The refusal of Her Majesty's Government to grant political asylum to Mr. Rahman al Baher and two other political prisoners, now detained on St. Helena, and who are about to be returned to Bahrain, where the normal processes of law do not apply and where the freedoms of speech and association are not recognised.
I require some help about the facts of this matter. I am in no way challenging the bona fides of the statement of the hon. Member for Wednesbury, but I do not know whether or not it is admitted that the Government have refused to grant political asylum to these men. Nor do I know, from my recollection of yesterday, whether there exists any Ministerial power to do so. I have some recollection of an agreement made with the Ruler of Bahrain. Perhaps I might have the assistance of the Lord Privy Seal or the hon. Member for Wednesbury.

Mr. Heath: As I stated yesterday, Mr Speaker, the prisoners were transferred to St. Helena, and an agreement was made, which was cited before the Privy Council when application was made there, that they would be returned to Bahrain on the expiry of their sentences or if their return was requested by the Ruler of Bahrain.

Mr. G. Brown: Is it not the case that the Government have refused political asylum arising out of what they claim to be their undertaking to the Ruler of Bahrain? I understood you, Mr. Speaker, to ask whether they have refused to grant political asylum. Am I not right in believing that they have already refused it?

Mr. Heath: I have no information at the moment that there has been a request for political asylum.

Mr. Stonehouse: May I refer again to the clear statement made by the right hon. Gentleman yesterday in answer to his hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin? His hon. Friend asked for political asylum for these men and was told that there could be no question of political asylum for them. I understand today from the legal advisers to the prisoners that it is the wish of these men to have political asylum in this


country. I have in my hand a communication from Mr. Baker in which he says that he wishes to come to the United Kingdom.

Mr. Speaker: I wanted help about whether or no there has been a refusal. The hon. Member for Wednesbury will appreciate that this communication of which he speaks does not extend to a refusal on the part of Her Majesty's Government to do something.

Mr. W. Yates: In fairness to the Chair and to the whole House, could not this matter be postponed for some time in order that the facts may be fully investigated?

Mr. Speaker: I am grateful for that intervention. That is the reason why I want to find out whether there is a dispute or not.

Mr. S. Silverman: Whether or not an application for political asylum has been made or refused, it is clear from what the Lord Privy Seal has said that it is proposed to expel or deport three people who are at present in British territory to a territory in which our jurisdiction will not apply, and that these men would then be in great danger. Is not that sufficient, since the fact is admitted, to support the request of my hon. Friend the Member for Wednesbury?

Mr. Speaker: At the moment I am invited to act on the word "refusal". I am trying to find out whether this is a disputed matter or not. I am not making good progress, however.

Mr. Heath: I have just had information that Her Majesty's Government and the Foreign Office have had no application for political asylum for these prisoners, and therefore there can have been no refusal.

Mr. Warbey: As to the Government's attitude, the Lord Privy Seal said yesterday that there can be no question of asylum. It would be very helpful if the right hon. Gentleman could alter that attitude now. On the question of whether or not the Government are bound to return these men to Bahrain, there was nothing in the original submission of the Ruler to Her Majesty the Queen requesting the detention of these

men in Bahrain that they might be returned at any time on request. In fact, the reference made in that submission by the Ruler was that they should be put in a safe place outside Bahrain for imprisonment for the appointed sentence without any reference to the possibility of their being returned to Bahrain before the sentence had expired.
On the question of what may happen to them and what might happen during the Recess, there is ample evidence from many commentators that the trial at which these men were sentenced was a farce.

Mr. Speaker: At this point the hon. Member goes out of order. I confess that my impression is that the relevant fact in the Motion moved by the hon. Member for Wednesbury is so much in dispute that I ought not at this moment to allow his application, but I bear in mind that the hon. Member has tomorrow a slice of—I am afraid I do not remember of what hours—the time proposed for the Adjournment tomorrow. He would be at liberty to debate this matter then.

Mr. Paget: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 9, to consider a definite matter of urgent public importance, to wit, the proposal of the Government to extradite to Bahrain three Bahraini citizens at present in jurisdiction and to remove them out of jurisdiction.
This does not touch on any question of an application for asylum or anything of that sort. It confines the matter to a simple thing—that, without the extradition laws having been complied with or put into operation, Her Majesty's Government affect the whole principle of personal liberty and human rights if a person is sent from our jurisdiction to another jurisdiction for punishment without due process of law. That is the point. There is no suggestion that there is due process of law. This is a removal by the Executive for punishment, and in my submission that raises a matter of profound importance.

Copy of Motion handed in.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) asks leave to move the adjournment of


the House, under Standing Order No. 9, to consider a definite matter of urgent public importance, to wit:
The proposal of Her Majesty's Government to remove from the jurisdiction of Her Majesty's Government without due process of law three persons for punishment in another jurisdiction.
Does the hon. Member have the support of the House?

The pleasure of the House not having been signified, Mr. Speaker called on those Members who supported the Motion to rise in their places, and not less than 40 Members having accordingly risen, the Motion stood over, under Standing Order No. 9 (Adjournment on definite matter of urgent public importance) until Seven o'clock this evening.

BILL PRESENTED

PRIVATE STREETWORKS

Bill to amend the law relating to private streetworks in England and Wales, presented by Mr. Mulley; supported by Mr. Darling, Mr. J. Hynd, Mr. J. H. Osborn, Sir P. Roberts, and Mr. Winterbottom; read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Friday, 27th January and to be printed. [Bill 53.]

SITTINGS OF THE HOUSE

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That this House do meet Tomorrow at Eleven o'clock and that no Question be taken after Twelve o'clock; and that at Five o'clock Mr. Speaker do adjourn the House without putting any Question.—[Mr. R. A. Butler.]

4.18 p.m.

Mr. William Yates: As you are aware, Mr. Speaker, yesterday I brought to the attention of the House certain matters for which Her Majesty's Government are duly responsible. Those are their obligations to preserve the status quo between Israel and the Arab States. I would not detain the House for too long on this matter if Her Majesty's Government would be prepared to make a statement on the obligations which our country has not only under the Three-Power Declaration of 1950, but towards the arming of both Israel and the Arab States themselves.
I am quite prepared to accept the adjournment of the House if one of the Ministers on behalf of the Government will make a statement on this matter, but I am not prepared to do so if the Government suppose or believe that the matter is of no concern to them. I notice in The Times this morning the following statement by that newspaper's correspondent in the United States—

Mr. Speaker: Would the hon. Member be good enough to relate his observations to the first Motion on the Order Paper?

Mr. Yates: I am trying my very best, Mr. Speaker, to tell you and the House, and with the leave of the House, why I do not propose to vote in favour of this Motion. I am trying to explain to the House that I do not wish to vote for the adjournment of the House until the Lord Privy Seal has made a statement on a matter which I consider to be of urgent public importance.

Mr. Speaker: We are not discussing the adjournment of the House at the moment, as far as I understand. Will the hon. Member relate his observations to the Question that we are discussing?

Mr. Yates: I probably anticipated the Motion. I am sorry, Mr. Speaker.

Question put and agreed to.

ADJOURNMENT (CHRISTMAS)

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That this House, at its rising Tomorrow, do adjourn till Tuesday, 24th January.—[Mr. R. A. Butler.]

4.20 p.m.

Mr. William Yates: I apologise to you, Mr. Speaker, and to the House for trying to jump the gun. All I can do is to repeat as shortly as I can the urgency with which the rest of the world is looking at the problem of the rearmament with atomic weapons of the State of Israel.
Apart from the Government, I would have thought that the Opposition, who are so keen on confining atomic weapons to Europe, would have been the first to have noticed these reports and would have encouraged the Government to insist that no nuclear Power should attempt to hand out nuclear weapons or assist other countries who do not possess them to get the means of making them. Can one imagine a more dangerous place to manufacture atomic weapons than the Middle East, and in particular the State of Israel?
I would like to vote for the Motion and go home at Christmas time, but on one condition, that the Lord Privy Seal, out of courtesy to the House, will make a statement on this matter which is of great importance throughout the world. After all, it is the subject of a leading article in The Times today. If it was discussed last night by the United Nations Political Committee, I should have thought that, out of courtesy, the Lord Privy Seal would have mentioned the attitude of our Government and the responsibility of our Government to the armistice between Israel and the Arab States. When I telephoned the Foreign Office I was surprised to find the attitude: "Nothing particular is going to happen. We are not interested". Apparently the Government's attitude is: "You can all have atomic weapons. Line up, and we will give them to you. You can have just what you want".
Our great ally in N.A.T.O., France, having considered the matter, promptly decides that to help the Algerian war, it would a good thing to assist the State of Israel to manufacture atomic weapons. For what purpose? For what purpose

can the State of Israel want atomic weapons? What is the point of the State of Israel having atomic weapons? How can the Government, having signed an agreement on an arms embargo—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman cannot discuss the merits of the question on this Motion. I am afraid that he must keep in order.

Mr. Yates: I do not want to trespass on the time of the House on this Motion. I would have thought that we would have acceded to the resolution of the United Nations Political Committee on Monday night asking all its members, voluntarily and of their own endeavour, not to hand out nuclear arms or to give other countries nuclear armaments or methods of making nuclear weapons. I admit that the Government abstained from voting on that Resolution, but I should have thought that when they heard that their ally, France, was prepared to assist one of the combatant countries in the Middle East to manufacture atomic weapons—

Mr. Speaker: Order. My duty does not allow me to permit the hon. Gentleman to go on arguing the merits of the case on this Motion. I must ask him to adhere to the Question before the House.

Mr. Yates: I am not prepared to vote for the Motion. The rest of the world thinks this matter is important, and I tried to move the Adjournment of the House yesterday. The United Nations thinks the matter is important and I should have thought that out of courtesy to the House Her Majesty's Government could have produced tomorrow without fail a statement stating Britain's attitude towards the supply of atomic weapons by her ally, France, to Israel, bearing in mind that we are fundamentally responsible for the security of Israel and the Arab States. Out of courtesy to the country and to the House and because of my interest in Israel and the Arab States, I would have thought that the Minister would have done that. If he does not, I shall vote against the Motion.

4.25 p.m.

Mr. Sydney Silverman: It has become common form in recent years, whenever this Motion is moved, for some hon. Members to


oppose it to call attention to the large number of important matters which might be discussed by the House if only we did not adjourn. The result of the debate has always been the same. We always do adjourn, but it is not for that reason an unprofitable Parliamentary enterprise because it serves to concentrate, at the moment when we are temporarily departing from our duties, our attention on the important matters that we are leaving neglected and with which perhaps we might have dealt.
The hon. Gentleman has raised one of them. I think that he chose it with some lack of proportion and on rather a slender foundation. Before the State of Israel was created and this House was still responsible for it as a mandated British territory, I played some little part in the House in the events which led to the establishment of the State of Israel.
I would feel deep personal grief if the statement to which the hon. Gentleman has referred turned out to be true.

Mr. W. Yates: It is true.

Mr. Silverman: I hope it is not, and I hope that proper investigation will be made and that it will be found that it is not true. Incidentally, I propose to spend a few days there myself—

Mr. Speaker: I do not think that the hon. Member can do that in order.

Mr. Silverman: I was in the middle of a conditional sentence, the end of which was, "if this Motion happens to be carried, and I will make some inquiries for myself."
If the hon. Gentleman was saying that the House ought not to adjourn until we had a greater opportunity to discuss the statement made by the Minister of State for Foreign Affairs about the new contribution, in the season of peace and good will, of nuclear weapons to Europe, I could have sympathised much more with his point. I dare say many of my hon. Friends will wish to draw attention to a number of other reasons why we should not adjourn so soon, or for so long, but I want to confine my protest to one limited question.
The Leader of the House is also the Home Secretary. I do not think it has often happened that there might be a

conflict of loyalties, or a conflict of duties, between his function as Home Secretary and his function as Leader of the House, but on this occasion there may be. He has said repeatedly that he recognises the importance of the Motion—Death Penalty (Refusal of Reprieve)—in the name of about 80 of my colleagues, of which notice was given nearly a month ago. He has said that the only reason why we have not discussed it, and why he is not able to announce a date when we may discuss it, is that he has no time or that the Government have no time. As Leader of the House he says that there is no time, but, of course, he is saying it also as Home Secretary because it is a Motion directed against his action and his judgment. If we were to sit one day more, or if the Adjournment were for one day less, we could debate this Motion. I, for one, am not prepared to accept the Motion now before the House, or to vote for it, until we get a more satisfactory statement from the Home Secretary as to what his attitude and his intentions are as regards the Motion to which I have referred.
Before taking the matter further, let me make two concessions, if they can be so called. Something has been said in this discussion about the Motion having been put down at the invitation of the right hon. Gentleman. "Invitation" is not altogether the right word. Nobody pretends that the Home Secretary wanted the Motion to go down, or that he wanted it to be discussed. What happened was that when he was asked for an explanation of some things, for which he is constitutionally bound to be responsible to the House, he said that it was not the practice to give it and that hon. Members—I am not quoting him verbatim—who wanted to raise the matter and hold him to his constitutional responsibilities had a remedy, which was to put down a Motion.
That was not an invitation by the Home Secretary, but it was an indication that that was the only way in which the matter could be raised and in which he could be compelled to make to the House such statement as he thought it right to make. For that reason, it was put down and, therefore, to some extent he shares responsibility for the appearance of the Motion on the Order Paper, and for its continuance there until it has been disposed of one way or the other.
He said this afternoon that he recognised the importance of the subject and of the Motion, which means that he knows that it is not a trivial matter and that it is a Motion which might reasonably be expected to be put on the Order Paper by reasonable hon. Members exercising their responsibilities and their duty. Therefore, he must do something more about it than going on time after time and week after week saying, "Of course, you are right to put it down, and, of course, it is very important, and, of course, I am responsible to the House of Commons, but I cannot tell you whether I will ever be able to find time to discuss it." In that way he could reduce the responsibility of the Home Secretary to the House to an absurdity. I am sure that he does not want to do that, but that is the way in which to make the public mind, already confused and upset about some of his decisions, more confused than ever, and to bring the whole state of the law into complete contempt.
The second matter which I wish to put to the right hon. Gentleman is this. I do not know whether he is an assiduous reader of the Sunday Press, but he may have seen an article by Mr. Laurence Thompson in the Observer last Sunday. I read it with surprise and regret. Mr. Laurence Thompson is a well-known Parliamentary journalist, a man of great integrity and great experience, but, if I may put it in the vernacular, on this occasion he has put his foot in it. In the course of the article he suggested that I intended to put down a Motion of this kind on every occasion on which there was a capital sentence and on which a reprieve was refused for the purpose of harassing the Home Secretary. I assure him in public, what I am sure he has already realised himself, that that is without justification and was said without any consultation with me. I have no such intention.
I have never followed any such practice, and I cannot imagine anything more cruel or anything more unfair, while capital punishment remains, than for the Minister, who has this dreadful responsibility of deciding time after time, to feel that on every occasion he is going to be harried and bullied and criticised on the Floor of the House for every

decision that he makes. I have never followed such a practice, and I have no intention of following such a practice, and it would be entirely wrong for any hon. Member to do so.
The situation is quite different. The responsibility of the Home Secretary to the House has nothing whatever to do with the rights and wrongs of capital punishment. If we abolish it, the question will never arise again. That is true, but while we retain it in any form there will be and always has been preserved the Prerogative of mercy, and for the Prerogative of mercy the Home Secretary will always remain responsible to the House of Commons.
The question only arises and ought fairly only to arise in circumstances in which prima facie there seems to be a reasonable case for reprieve and yet a reprieve is refused. It is only on those occasions when it is right and fair and proper for Motions of this kind to be put down and, so far as I know, in my 25 years' experience in the House, such a Motion has been put down only once before, on the occasion of the first capital sentence after the pasage of the Homicide Act, 1957, the case of Vickers, when the Attorney-General's fiat to appeal to the House of Lords was refused and in which a petition for reprieve was also refused. That is the only other occasion, and I cite it only to show that, although it is right and proper in fitting cases to put down such a Motion, there never has been any general practice of doing it in order to embarrass the Home Secretary and to tempt him to do the unconstitutional thing of altering the law of the land by administrative behaviour, which would be quite wrong.
Having said that, I ask the Home Secretary to appreciate the spirit in which the Motion has been put down and to believe that we shall go on pressing him time after time until time for a debate is given. I have no intention of saying a single word about the merits of his decision or the merits of the Motion. This is not the time or place for it and to do so would be completely out of order. However, this was a case which aroused fairly considerable and influential interest before his decision was made, as the correspondence columns of The Times made amply clear.
The decision was taken against a background of a decision in the House of Lords of which the right hon. Gentleman is aware. If ever there was a case in which some explanation was due to the House and to the public it is this case of Forsyth and Harris, and I hope that the Home Secretary will again consider the matter carefully and responsibly, as I know he will, so as not to frustrate this constitutional right of the House of Commons to demand from him an explanation and justification of the things that he does in our name.

4.38 p.m.

Colonel Tufton Beamish: I will not take up the time of the House for more than two minutes, but I want to express my great regret at the fact that our rising for the Chrismas Recess tomorrow will not give an opportunity to debate a Motion which appeared on the Notice Paper yesterday in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward), who is not here and whom I have not consulted, and which concerns the timing of Her Majesty's Christmas broadcast, to which we always look forward with such eager anticipation.
I cannot do better than read the Motion, because it is extremely well worded and expresses a point of view with which practically every hon. Member will agree. It reads as follows:
That in the opinion of this House it would be widely welcomed if the British Broadcasting Corporation would arrange for Her Majesty's Christmas broadcast to be given at 3 p.m. on Christmas Day; that this House approves the decision to abandon its broadcasting at 12 noon which would have prevented churchgoers from hearing the broadcast but considers that 1 p.m. would interfere with those cooking and/or eating their Christmas dinners; and that Her Majesty's loyal subjects would appreciate the opportunity of hearing Her message in the quiet of Christmas afternoon.

Mr. Marcus Lipton: What about the Amendment which seeks to add
and of hearing that an extra supply of coal had been granted to old-age pensioners to enable them to listen to the broadcast in warmth and comfort".

Colonel Beamish: I am speaking about the Motion in what I hope to be a completely non-controversial spirit. Although I appreciate the point of view

of the Amendment, which is substantial, it does not fit in with the point of view which I am trying to express, and with which, I think, the whole House will agree. I simply want to say to the Leader of the House that I personally feel that this point of view would have a great deal of support both in the House and outside, and that I regard the decision of the B.B.C. as inexplicable and deplorable and I would be most grateful—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Gordon Touche): I am afraid the hon. and gallant Member is now going into the merits of the question.

Colonel Beamish: I have, in fact, concluded, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, but I am sorry if I was out of order in my last sentence. I hope that the Leader of the House may be able to tell us if there has been a favourable reaction from the B.B.C.

4.41 p.m.

Mr. Desmond Donnelly: I rise to support my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) in what he has said. On the first point, I personally would be strongly in favour of suggesting an even longer Recess to enable him to lead the campaign for nuclear disarmament in Israel as well.

Mr. S. Silverman: I shall make my contribution.

Mr. Donnelly: That is duly noted.
On the second and much more serious matter, regarding the Motion concerning capital punishment of two individuals and the fact that time has not been found or provided by the Government for a statement on the matter, perhaps I may be permitted to say to the Home Secretary that I am sorry about the unfortunate choice of words in which I said that he had invited my hon. Friend to put down that Motion. I appreciate that it might have been better to have said that he indicated that this was a way in which the matter could be discussed.
We all sympathise with the Home Secretary in the appalling human burden which he has to sustain, but in this matter I should have thought that if the House does not have a statement when a Motion of this nature is put down, supported by a very large number of hon.


Members of the House, the House of Commons itself has a right to insist upon a statement being made It is a very important constitutional right that we have regarding capital punishment which is being allowed to go, simply because of no Government time being made available, and I strongly support what my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne has said about the desirability of the Government making a statement.

4.43 p.m.

Mr. Marcus Lipton: Normally, I would support the opposition to the Motion that is now before the House. I have done so on more than one occasion in the past, and one of the reasons why I cannot support the hon. Member for the Wrekin (Mr. W. Yates) in his argument against the Motion is this. He has not provided any factual evidence that atomic bombs are being, made in the State of Israel at the present time.

Mr. W. Yates: I do not want to be discourteous to the hon. Member for Brixton (Mr. Lipton), and neither do I want to—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. Member would be out of order if he did.

Mr. Lipton: The fact remains that the reasons given by the hon. Member for The Wrekin for opposing the Motion for the Christmas Adjournment are not substantiated by any hard facts, and simply because they are not substantiated by hard facts I think the Government would be entitled to adopt the attitude that, as there is no evidence which indicates that atomic bombs are being manufactured in Israel, there is no reason why the Government of this country—

Mr. Yates: On a point of order. I did not understand, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, why you ruled me out of order in replying to the hon. Member.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. Member was talking on the merits of the issue.

Mr. Lipton: I, too, would be out of order if I were to discuss whether the manufacture of atomic bombs in Israel is right or wrong. What I am trying to argue is that the hon. Member for The Wrekin has advanced the argument that the House should not adjourn for the

Christmas Recess unless the Government make a statement on this matter. There is nothing on which the Government can make a statement—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—because, if the hon. Member will refer again to the copy of The Times that he has with him—fortunately, more than one copy of The Times is printed daily, and I also happen to have a copy of The Times—and if he will refer to a little lower down the page to a statement made by the Atomic Energy Commission of Israel, he will find that Israel is not producing atomic weapons. The hon. Member has only to look a little bit further down the first column at the official statement by the Atomic Energy Authority of Israel to see that it indicates that Israel is not making atomic bombs. There is a reactor, it is true, at a place called Rehovot, and it was built with the assistance of the United States Government under President Eisenhower's "Atoms for Peace" programme. There is another—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I am afraid that the hon. Member is now going beyond the Motion.

Mr. Lipton: I readily accept your Ruling, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, and accept it much more willingly than, apparently, the hon. Member for The Wrekin did.

Mr. Yates: On a point of order. I think that is a grave reflection on the Chair.

Mr. Lipton: The Chair can protect itself without the aid of the hon. Member for The Wrekin, and if there is any reflection on anybody it is on the hon. Member himself and not on the Chair.
In these circumstances, I do not feel that Her Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom are called upon to postpone the Adjournment of the House—

Mr. Yates: Yes.

Mr. Lipton: —on certain unsubstantiated statements made by the hon. Member for The Wrekin.

Mr. Yates: The Daily Mail.

Mr. S. Silverman: That makes it worse.

Mr. Lipton: As my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) says, that makes it worse.
In these circumstances, I want to relieve the Leader of the House of any feeling of anxiety about these reasons for not adjourning for the Christmas Recess. No evidence has been adduced. I shall be visiting Israel within the next forty-eight hours, and I shall be able to find out for myself whether there is any substance in what the hon. Member for The Wrekin has said.

4.47 p.m.

Mr. William Ross: I want to raise an entirely different point, although, indeed, I feel tempted to deal with the matter raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman), particularly when we bear in mind that there will be something else happening in Scotland tomorrow in regard to the death penalty that will be causing very much concern to people who feel that it is time that we got rid of this barbarous form of punishment.
The Motion is in two parts, concerning, firstly, whether we rise tomorrow, and, secondly, whether we should come back on 24th January. Having had a look at the business which we have been told we are to conduct during the week we come back, I wonder whether we should bother to come back on the 24th, because, the House should remember, I am a Scotsman and 25th January is a very important day in Scotland. I was thinking of suggesting to the Government that all the business put down for that day could well be done on the 26th, in order to leave Scotland fairly free to enjoy Burns Night.
On the question whether we rise tomorrow, it is a much more serious point. In this House just over a year ago, we had a tremendous amount of excitement, statements by Ministers, Questions and all the rest about a few cracks that had appeared on M.1. Something has happened in Scotland during this week which is really a major industrial catastrophe, in which a whole new section of electrified railway, after four weeks' operation, has been completely put out of action and is now back on steam. All we have had from the Minister of Transport are just a few words to say that there is to be an inquiry relating to the actual circumstances in which there was an explosion.
But a far greater matter is at stake, and will be at stake all the time while

the House is in Recess. We in Scotland are concerned to see that this matter is properly investigated in public, and that there is proper and efficient equipment on our modernised railway system. This is something which, as one of my hon. Friends has said, reflects considerably on the whole engineering industry of this country, and particularly the private sector of that engineering industry. The Minister of Transport must be held responsible, because when we discussed this modernisation scheme, we discussed it in terms of cutting back on the actual work done in the railway workshops themselves, and we were told then about the interests of private enterprise in regard to it. Surely, for every day that the Minister is unharried about this the position will be allowed to continue. The Minister of Transport should be harried about his personal responsibility in relation to the matter. The Government also have a personal responsibility.
I am not too happy about these symbols of the great new advance of the railway industry in Scotland lying idle for the next month as a monument to the failures of private enterprise. I want an assurance from the Leader of the House that the Government will go into this question and set up a much wider form of investigation than we have been promised. The Minister said that he is discussing the possibility of a wider investigation, and I think that is absolutely essential from the point of view of industry, transport, and the people of West Scotland.

4.50 p.m.

Mr. G. W. Reynolds: I am disappointed that the hon. Member for The Wrekin (Mr. W. Yates) is not in his place at the moment. I also express some concern with regard to the question he raised. I am far more worried about the possible emergence of nuclear weapons of various kinds in the area to which he referred than I am about the statement made by the Lord Privy Seal this afternoon of a possible addition to the already overwhelming armoury of the N.A.T.O. forces. In my opinion, the spread of these weapons into the Middle East may be a far greater danger to the peace of the entire world than anything we have discussed in this House during the Session. I hope that the Lord Privy Seal will be able to satisfy the


hon. Member for The Wrekin by making a statement about this matter and by expressing Her Majesty's Government's point of view about possible developments, so as to make the House as aware of them as is possible from the information to hand at present.
Although I am in full agreement with adjourning for Christmas, I do not see why we should wait until 24th January to get over the festivities of 25th and 26th December and, for the Scots, the 31st December and 1st January.

Mr. Ross: And 2nd January.

Mr. Reynolds: And 2nd January. Although we should adjourn for Christmas we should be able to return before the date proposed in the Motion. Since we came back at the end of October we have not had time to discuss the housing position in London, under which many hundreds of people at present are under notice to quit because their three-year leases under the Rent Act have fallen in, and who, before the House reassembles towards the end of January, may have had actions commenced against them in the county courts.
I want to draw attention to the fact that in the earlier part of October my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South-West (Mr. A. Evans) endeavoured to obtain a Second Reading for a Bill which he had drawn up, which would have prevented the eviction of persons whose three-year leases had come to an end. At that time there was no time for the matter to be dealt with, and when we reassembled for the new Session there was the Gracious Speech, when, as laid down in Standing Orders, it is not possible for private Members to bring in Bills for consideration until such time as those hon. Members who have been fortunate in the Ballot have signified the Long Titles of their Bills.
Since that time, due to changes made in Standing Orders in recent years whereby it is not permissible for more than one ten-minute Bill to be dealt with on one day, and for only certain days to be available for hon. Members to present such Bills, it has not been possible for my hon. Friend to introduce the Bill and ask the House to have it printed and given a Third Reading. Nevertheless, despite the fact that it has not been

introduced, people are still being affected by the Rent Act in my constituency and in the constituencies of my hon. Friend and other hon. Members throughout Greater London.
At present it will not be possible for my hon. Friend to ask the leave of the House, under the so-called Ten Minutes Rule, to introduce his Bill until after 24th January, by which time many more dozens of people will have lost their homes due to the effect of the Rent Act. I suggest that it is not necessary for the House to adjourn for such a long period for the Christmas Recess. We could come back very much earlier in January so that we could have time to deal with this Bill.
That would also give the House time to have a closer look at the position that may or may not be arising in the Middle East, and to discuss the Motion to which my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) has referred, dealing with the actions of the Home Secretary. All those matters could be dealt with.
I understand from some of my constituents that within the next few days they will be providing me with a petition protesting against the housing conditions in my constituency, and that that petition will have over 6,000 signatures on it. If I receive this petition within the next forty-eight hours it will not be possible for me to bring it before the House for at least another month.

Mr. W. Yates: Crafty.

Mr. Reynolds: Although the hon. Member knows that the House normally rises for a month at Christmas my constituents are not so aware. They have therefore made arrangements to hand me the petition within the next day or so, and I shall not be in a position to present it for many days afterwards, No doubt I can square myself with my constituents, but I submit that it would be far better for the House to return earlier so that it can hear the terms of the petition and take some action to deal with the chronic housing situation in my constituency and those of many of my hon. Friends.
For those reasons, although I am in full agreement with the House rising for Christmas—in fact, I hope that whatever happens we shall not have to come here


on Christmas Day, Boxing Day or two or three days after that—I do not think it is necessary to remain in Recess until 24th January. We could return earlier in order to deal with the many important matters which the Leader of the House is always telling us the House has no time to deal with. I am pure that the House would be prepared to come back a fortnight, ten days or a week earlier, so that these matters could be fully discussed on the Floor of the House.

4.57 p.m.

Mr. Hector Hughes: I support the views put before the House for restricting the length of the Recess as provided for by the Motion. Some of the arguments put forward have related to international matters, and the last one related to a constituency matter. The Government have previously refused to discuss these, very often on the ground that there is no time. The Government should revise the Motion now before the House in order to provide time to discuss them.
There is one very important matter that I suggest should be dealt with before the House rises. I call upon the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the Minister of Works to deal with this matter, which is very urgent, nationally, and to our producers and consumers. It is also urgent from a financial point of view. In Aberdeen a scientific factory is to be closed down. The factory is of international prestige; it has aggregated a band of scientists of world renown, and it is doing great service to producers and consumers, but the Government are wantonly closing it down. They are breaking up that band of scientists and selling the apparatus.
I shall not go into the merits of the case; I merely want to stress the importance of the matter in order to indicate that some Minister should deal with it before the House rises, or, alternatively, that it should be put in the list for urgent debate immediately after the House reassembles.
The apparatus is being sold grossly under value, at a loss to the State, and the scientists are being dis-employed and scattered also at a loss to the State. Consumers and producers are losing thereby. I therefore submit that it is wrong, economically and financially, for the

House to part before this matter is adequately dealt with. I join with my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) who has accentuated the importance of 25th January. If we are to adjourn on the date mentioned in the Motion, I suggest that alternatively the Motion be amended so as to allow the House a week off surrounding 25th January so that the anniversary of Robert Burns may be properly celebrated.
My major submission is that something should be done about the scientific factory in Aberdeen before the House adjourns. I have here a cutting from the Aberdeen Press and Journal which is headed "Plea for Aberdeen Research Station". This is not only my idea, it is a matter of public importance. The cutting states:
The Ministry of Works has told the National Farmers' Union that the Ministry's Research Station at Aberdeen, which has been carrying out work on accelerated freeze-drying, is being closed down and the plant and site disposed of.
That shows the urgency of the matter. The cutting goes on:
Reporting this to the Union's council meeting in London yesterday, the fruit committee said they had asked the chairman"—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Order. The hon. and learned Member is going beyond the terms of the Motion.

Mr. Hughes: I do not want to go into the merits of the matter. I am merely trying to stress its importance and to induce the Government to deal with this urgent and important matter from a financial and economic viewpoint before the House adjourns for the Christmas Recess.

5.2 p.m.

Mr. Richard Marsh: Surely the number of points raised by hon. Members on both sides of the House in their opposition to the length of the proposed Adjournment are themselves a sufficient indication of the need for the Leader of the House to stop and think again and to give consideration to the length of time for which this House is to adjourn. Obviously, hon. Members who have worked hard in the previous months, look forward to an opportunity of getting up-to-date with their correspondence and their reading. But this country is in a difficult situation at present regarding its domestic policy and


its overseas commitments. The Government policies have landed the nation in such difficulties and we are faced with so many problems that hon. Members on both sides of the House would like an opportunity to meet a little earlier than was intended in order to endeavour, as best they can, to help the Government avoid the difficulties into which they appear intent on plunging.
On several occasions we have heard from right hon. and hon. Members opposite that the country is in an economic mess. I am sure that this is agreed by hon. Members on both sides of the House.

Mr. W. Yates: No.

Mr. Marsh: If hon. Members opposite do not agree about this, it is a rather depressing indication of the amount of interest they seem to be taking in the present position of the country.

Mr. S. Silverman: That in itself would be a suitable subject for a debate.

Mr. Marsh: Yes, it would be a suitable subject for a debate in the interests of democracy.
I wish to raise a problem from my own constituency where, as a direct result of the failure of the Government's economic policy, constituents of mine who work in three different factories have found themselves declared redundant. Throughout the country we have seen that hundreds of thousands of people are working on short time and industries are faced with redundancy.
The President of the Board of Trade has admitted publicly that we are in grave danger regarding the country's exports. One would be justified in saying this is not entirely the fault of right hon. and hon. Members opposite. As Conservatives, they are prisoners of an economic system which is archaic and which blunders from one crisis to another. But there are sufficient of the difficulties in which the nation finds itself at present which can be directly attributable to the failure of the Government; and hon. Members are entitled to ask whether, at a time when unemployment is increasing, when short-time working is increasing, when the nation's balance of payments position is

becoming increasingly more serious, hon. Members of this House should adjourn, like 600 Neros, to sit at home and watch the position of the nation getting worse.
I ask the right hon. Gentleman to consider recalling the House at an earlier date than was previously thought necessary so that we may consider the dangers and difficulties at home and abroad with which the country is now faced, and so that Her Majesty's Opposition may have the opportunity of giving the Government and hon. Members opposite the advice which events have shown that they clearly need.

5.6 p.m.

Mr. Laurence Pavitt: I oppose the length of time for which we are rising for the Christmas Recess on three counts. We are all looking forward to a break at Christmas. We are not saying, "We don't want your Christmas pudding" but that we do not need a month in which to digest it. It is the length of time which has concerned hon. Members on both sides of the House. They have raised a number of points which amply make the case that there are urgent and important matters which this House should have the opportunity of discussing. I speak on principle because, for Thursday after Thursday, we have heard the Leader of the House declare that we cannot discuss this or that important issue because of lack of time. We are now saying to the right hon. Gentleman that we are prepared to give him time to have the debates which are so urgently required on all the points which have been raised.
In addition to the anxiety, which I share with my hon. Friends who represent London constituencies, regarding the housing situation and the question of petitions—I also hope to present one in the near future—I wish to draw attention to the whole question of debates on health and the lack of them. We have had important reports from Government Committees, but when we have asked for opportunities to discuss them, the Leader of the House, while agreeing on their importance, has regretted that there was not time to do so. The Cranbrook Report on obstetrics and the conditions under which women give birth to children in this country is something for


which there is a great need of discussion, and for the House to be aware of the requirements to provide conditions under which children may be born with the best possible hope of survival.
There is another most important point, and here I cross swords with my hon. Friend the Member for Brixton (Mr. Lipton). It was raised by the hon. Member for The Wrekin (Mr. W. Yates) and I listened with care to the argument. I am not satisfied. I do not know the position, and I think that when hon. Members do not know the position it is the responsibility of the House to find out. That is what hon. Members were elected to do.
I am concerned about the time factor. I think it was the week before last when I came home very tired and got home in time to hear a little of the programme on television. I heard the noted philosopher, Lord Bertrand Russell, declaring in a quiet, unemotional kind of voice that he thought that all the hon. Members, and this honourable House itself, might well not he in existence in two years' time. That is a matter of great importance.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Order. That has nothing to do with the Motion before the House.

Mr. Pavitt: I am raising the point that the spread of atomic weapons in Israel—a subject raised by the hon. Member for The Wrekin and by my hon. Friend the Member for Brixton—is a matter of public importance, and if there is a likelihood of the spread of these weapons, it means that two years may not be enough, although I am optimistic about this and think that we have a 50–50 chance—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Order. We cannot go into the merits of that question.

Mr. Pavitt: I hope that the House will agree that we should vote against this long Adjournment and have the opportunity to discuss the points which have been raised by hon. Members on both sides of the House.

5.10 p.m.

Mr. George Brown: I am very reluctant to advise my hon. and right hon. Friends to vote against this Motion, but it must be apparent to the Leader of the House that there are a number of vitally important issues outstanding

which would be left outstanding for a longish time if we were to rise tomorrow and not come back until 24th January. To a large extent, what one feels proper to advise will depend on the nature of the reply which the right hon. Gentleman gives.
It is not enough to say that, because this is the sort of routine period for which we adjourn at this time of year, we should do so again this year without some regard to the importance of many, if not all, the issues which have been raised by my hon. Friends. I express no opinion about the point raised by the hon. Member for The Wrekin (Mr. W. Yates) because I rather suspect that the facts are not as he alleged them to be, but it is for him to make his case and he has done so. We are all impressed that the other matters which have been raised are of great importance. They have been outstanding for some time, particularly the Motion in the names of my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) and others. That also applies to some of the other items which have been referred to by my hon. Friends.
This, to some extent, links up with the point raised by the Leader of the Opposition earlier today about the nature of the business for the week when we come back. We are not only asked to go away for the period set out in the Motion but are invited to come back and debate a whole rag-bag collection of not very important items, while still leaving undiscussed these important matters. I want the Leader of the House to say what he feels and whether he will look at the business put down for the first week when we return to see which of these items could be included in that week. We should also have an assurance, in view of the critical nature of many things in the world, that the Government will keep in mind that it may be proper to call us back earlier than the date mentioned in the Motion and, if they feel that way, that they would do so.

5.12 p.m.

The Secretary, of State for the Home Department (Mr. R. A. Butler): I willingly respond to the right hon. Member for Belper (Mr. G. Brown) and the various views expressed in the House. We usually have a debate of this sort


on the Motion for the Adjournment for a Recess. I do not think there has been anything unusual in the arguments sincerely put forward by several hon. Members. I would only remind the right hon. Member that this period for the Recess is not unusual. During the time of the Labour Government the period was roughly thirty-one or thirty-two days and this time it is thirty-three days. There is nothing unusual about that. Between 1945 and this date we have adjourned for the Recess for such a period and on some occasions we have adjourned for a longer time.
The second point which I think is of great importance is that power already exists under Standing Orders providing for the recall of the House at short notice, should public interest so require, under Standing Order No. 112. I have said on previous occasions, and I think it has particular importance, that the Government naturally will pay attention to that. We bear it in mind in moving this Motion and asking the House to carry it today. In the state of the world as referred to by the hon. Member for Willesden, West (Mr. Pavitt) it is naturally uppermost in our minds that we are facing a situation such as our predecessors never faced and it is absolutely right to have in reserve these powers of recall of the House if necessary. I should like to add that it is natural for the Government to wish to work with the House of Commons. The House may not always be easy with the Administration, but in my long experience the Government always do better when working with the House than without it. It not only keeps us awake but brings to light various grievances which exist.
My hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin (Mr. W. Yates) raised some anxieties about atomic construction in Israel. I can give him only the latest news I have been able to acquire. The Times of 20th December quotes the Israel Atomic Energy Commission as denying publicly that Israel is producing atomic weapons. I have just had drawn to my attention a public statement by the Quai d'Orsay that all necessary dispositions have been taken to ensure that the Israel installations which have been the subject of French assistance would be used

for exclusively peaceful purposes. That news is welcome for any question of weapons production would be extremely disturbing. I am also informed that at the site south of Beersheba there is nothing to suggest that progress is so advanced that it could be used for military purposes in the near future. I am precluded from going into greater detail in this debate, but I hope that will be to some extent reassuring to my hon. Friend who raised this very important matter.
The hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) returned to the subject of the Motion signed by himself and a considerable number of his colleagues. I am glad that he and the hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Donnelly) have been able to clear out of the way any misunderstanding that I invited that Motion to be put down in terms. That is not so and that has been made clear. I accept the explanation of the hon. Member and also that of the hon. Member for Pembroke. What is obviously in my mind, and on which hon. Members have been building, is that if hon. Members are dissatisfied with the exercise of the Prerogative or any other action taken by the Secretary of State they are able to remind him that he is answerable to Parliament and they are perfectly entitled to take whatever steps they like. So I think we are in agreement that that is how the matter stands between us. The hon. Member complained of a certain article in a Sunday newspaper. I can only say that I sympathise with him, but I can accept no responsibility for that.

Mr. S. Silverman: I never thought for a moment that the right hon. Gentleman had any responsibility for it, or attached too much importance to it, but, in case other people did, I thought he would like me to say that I had no responsibility for it either.

Mr. Butler: I am glad that that also has been cleared out of the way. The hon. Member and the hon. Member for Pembroke complained that there has not yet been found Government time to discuss this Motion. That remains the position. When one has to weigh the variety of claims upon Government time, one has to consider very carefully the different Motions, the merits of the


Motions and the opportunity of dealing with them. That has been done in this case which—as I have repeatedly said—being a matter of life and death, is naturally of the greatest possible importance, but at the same time I have had to bear in mind the fact that it is very unusual, as the hon. Member himself said, to have a Motion of this sort. Looking back over the many decades which preceded my occupancy of the Home Office, I discovered that my predecessors found two things. One was that Motions such as this are rare and the second was that, in fact, very few of my predecessors have felt it possible to give any considerable answer on this personal matter of the exercise of the prerogative.

Mr. S. Silverman: I am sorry to interrupt again. Of course, Motions of this kind are rare, but does the right hon. Gentleman know of any case in which such a Motion has been put down and not debated?

Mr. Butler: No, I do not know of such a case because I have not got my records with me today.

Mr. Silverman: There is none.

Mr. Butler: I know that they are rare and on occasions when the House of Commons has wished to learn about the exercise of the prerogative my predecessors in almost every case which I have examined have found it almost impossible to give the House a satisfactory answer for the reasons set out in the Royal Commission Report, which supported Sir John Anderson's case on this matter in saying that there was great difficulty in a Secretary of State replying to these matters because of the repercussions there might be if he answered in full. I mention that to show the great difficulties in answering such a debate or in finding time for it. I do not preclude altogether such a discussion taking place on an occasion which might be a proper occasion when such a debate might take place.
I shall certainly do my best, within the great limitations imposed on the Secretary of State in exercising the prerogative, to appear and answer before the House, but I could not today give any assurance that I would depart from the normal precedent of my predecessors and be able to satisfy the House by giving

the reasons which prompted me to take a certain course of action. Against that background, in view of the amount of business and the lack of time, it was difficult to find an opportunity to debate this Motion.
I ask hon. Members who have been perfectly reasonable in the manner in which they have raised this question and who have been sympathetic about the heavy responsibility laid on the Secretary of State, to realise the great difficulty in which I am placed in this matter.

Mr. G. Brown: One has great sympathy with the Home Secretary. He has made three propositions. One is that it is proper that the Home Secretary should be made to realise that he is answerable to Parliament. Secondly, he would have great difficulty in framing the reply he would be able to make. Thirdly, in the light of that he asks us to understand his difficulties in finding time. I am bound to say I do not see how No. 3 arises out of Nos. 1 and 2. If the right hon. Gentleman is answerable to Parliament time must be found, otherwise it is sheer nonsense to say he is answerable. We could all listen with great sympathy and understanding to the limitations which he would feel in answering the debate, but the debate would then have taken place and he would have been answerable. If he does not do the third simply because it is inconvenient to answer, is he not then demonstrably trying to save himself from being answerable?

Mr. Butler: I do not think the situation is quite as simple as that. In a matter of this weight, complexity and importance one has to weigh up the chances which there are for debating this or that subject. In view of the great difficulty, I do not believe all the Members of this House would, for example, think it was right to put down such a Motion. I do not believe that there is a universal desire for such a debate. As Leader of the House I have to take into account the views of the House as a whole. How I would like to leave this matter today in response to the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne and after the intervention of the right hon. Gentleman for Belper (Mr. G. Brown) is that it is a matter which weighs on my conscience. I take it


extremely seriously and I am sorry that time has not been found. I cannot depart from my statement today in which I gave no undertaking, but I can say that I will weigh what has been said in this debate very carefully and, perhaps, in consultation with my predecessors will find what is the best way out of this very difficult matter.
Various other matters have been raised by the hon. and gallant Member for Lewes (Colonel Beamish) in relation to the timing of the Christmas broadcast. This matter has been arranged and Her Majesty's pleasure has been taken. I do not think I can go back on that.
The hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) raised the question of the electrification of the Scottish railways. The Chief Inspecting Officer of Railways is causing an inquiry to be made into this and I can assure the House that the Minister will take this matter seriously and act with the utmost dispatch.

Mr. Ross: I asked for a very much wider investigation than that to which reference was made by the Minister of Transport. The right hon. Gentleman will bear in mind that from past experience of the Minister of Transport the people of Scotland have not yet any great confidence in either his ability or sincerity to deal with it sympathetically.

Mr. Butler: I do not think that that reflection upon my right hon. Friend is entirely justified. I can only give the assurance on behalf of the Government as a whole that we want to clear the matter up and bring it back before the House. The report is to be published. My right hon. Friend said that in his statement. I can only assure the hon. Member that we are giving the utmost attention to this matter and will not cease to do so during the Recess. It is a matter which, in the interests of the travelling public, especially in Scotland, in the neighbourhood of Glasgow, ought to be cleared up. I have noted the points made by the hon. and learned Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hector Hughes), the hon. Member for Willesden, West (Mr. Pavitt), the hon. Member for Greenwich (Mr. Marsh) and the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Reynolds). I do not think I can take them further on this occasion because I am precluded from going into the merits of a subject in answering this

Motion. I would only say that it is usual to adjourn for the Christmas Recess and, with the undertaking that I have given that we shall operate the Standing Order in question, I hope the House will agree that this House can depart.

Mr. W. Yates: On this very important point of atomic weapons and whether we adjourn or not, the right hon. Gentleman has said the Quai d'Orsay has said that there is no atomic equipment being made in Israel and also at Beersheba. Can he tell us whether communications from the Government of the United States say the same thing or not? If the United States Government have given different information as compared with the other two in collusion—Israel and France—I am prepared to think again.

Mr. Butler: I am afraid I cannot go any further in my statement. One statement was made on behalf of the Israel Atomic Authority and one on behalf of Quai d'Orsay. I cannot add to that.

Mr. G. Brown: We accept the spirit in which the right hon. Gentleman has answered and it is not my intention to advise my hon. Friends to divide on this Motion.
On the subject of the Motion in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman), we are very glad that the Home Secretary will think about this, discuss it and see what can be done. I am sure he will understand the fear of those who have signed it and those of us who have not and will not want to. Our fear is that if one acquiesces in the whittling down of the technical answerability of the Secretary of State to the House to the point where it is only a technicality and debate can be frustrated, one has, in fact, whittled down one of the great rights of the House to nothing at all. That is what worries some of us. I was very glad to hear what the Secretary of State said, and I thank him for it.

Mr. Butler: I have with me all the precedents in this matter and I have a statement about the Prerogative. What the Executive must do is to preserve the prerogative and what Parliament must do is to preserve the answerability of a Secretary of State to Parliament. I accept the constitutional position as stated by the right hon. Gentleman.

Mr. S. Silverman: Does the hon. Gentleman realise that there would be no answerability by any Minister to Parliament for anything if Parliament were not allowed the opportunity of debating any question on which they felt the Minister was wrong?

Mr. Butler: I think the real answer is what I said in my original speech. I ask hon. Members not to under-estimate the seriousness with which I regard this. This is an important Motion, but as Leader of the House I have to weigh it up in the light of general opinion.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That this House, at its rising Tomorrow, do adjourn till Tuesday 24th January.

COMPANIES (FLOATING CHARGES) (SCOTLAND)

5.28 p.m.

Mr. Forbes Hendry: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the law of Scotland so as to empower companies to give security by way of floating charges; and for purposes connected therewith.
May I allay any apprehensions that this Bill is an attempt to alter company law. It is not. It is designed purely to amend the law of Scotland. It does not affect the law of England in any way. On the contrary, if imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, the Bill is a compliment to English law, because, in a modest way, it proposes to amend the law of Scotland to make it the same as the law of England.
A strange anomaly of Scots law, dating from medieval times, is that it is impossible to create a security over moveable property except by delivering it up to the lender, or, in other words. pawning it. This may have encouraged prudence in olden days, but it has a most serious affect on the Scottish economy under modern conditions.
In England, on the other hand, and indeed in most other countries, it is possible for a company to create a charge over its stock in trade, moveable machinery, and so on, and at the same time carry on its ordinary business. This has enabled small and progressive businesses to raise loan capital at a crucial time on reasonable terms. This has been most valuable in enabling small and medium-sized businesses to expand. This, unfortunately, has not been the case in Scotland. The Scottish businessman in need of capital who goes to his banker or some other financial house and offers his stock in trade as security will find that these valuable assets cannot be made security. His bank manager shakes his head and says that he is sorry he cannot do anything about it.
This defect in Scots law has been an important factor in causing Scottish industry to lag behind in expansion. It has contributed to Scottish unemployment, lack of prosperity and lower standards of earning of the people in Scotland.
The Institute of Chartered Accountants of Scotland has expressed the view that the inability to create a security over moveables is one of the reasons why Scottish capital is invested in Scotland and is a barrier to economic activity. It and other bodies have cited cases where companies, which would otherwise have been registered in Scotland, have deliberately been registered in England so as to enable them to give such security.
The Industrial and Commercial Finance Corporation Limited, set up in 1945 to provide long-term finance for small and medium-sized businesses, has reported that the failure of Scottish companies to make full use of the facilities it provides is due largely to the inability of Scottish companies to give a security over their moveable assets.
The Scottish Council (Development and Industry) has reported that it has found that these restrictions on the granting of security has been a discouraging factor to American and other potential industrial investors in Scotland.
The Scottish Law Reform Committee, set up some years ago by my right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Advocate, has unanimously recommended legislation along the line I propose. What I propose is that Scottish companies should be enabled to give floating charges over their undertakings and assets in exactly the same way as English companies.
Economically, Scotland is lagging behind England, in many places

seriously. It is the duty of every patriotic Scot to do everything he can to bring that state of affairs to an end. In the House of Commons we are accustomed to lamentation and grumbling. Lamentation and grumbling on the part of the Scots will never cure the situation, but action may. The causes are complex. The Bill is not by any means the sole answer, but I submit that it is a modest step in the right direction.
I have been greatly heartened in the preparation of the Bill by the encouragement I have received from both sides of the House. I express my gratitude to those who have helped me with it. Because of that, I ask with confidence for leave to introduce the Bill, as an attempt on the part of Scotland to put her own house in order and do something to help herself.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Forbes Hendry, Sir J. Henderson-Stewart, Mr. Lawson, Mr. MacArthur, Mr. John MacLeod, Mr. Millan, Sir D. Robertson, Mr. Stodart, and Sir M. Galpern.

COMPANIES (FLOATING CHARGES) (SCOTLAND)

Bill to amend the law of Scotland so as to empower companies to give security by way of floating charges; and for purposes connected therewith, presented accordingly and read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Friday, 10th February and to be printed. [Bill 54.]

Orders of the Day — BETTING LEVY BILL

As amended, considered.

Clause 1.—(ESTABLISHMENT OF HORSE-RACE BETTING LEVY BOARD.)

5.34 p.m.

Mr. Frederick Peart: I beg to move, in page 1, line 19, to leave out "seven" and to insert "eight".
Perhaps it would be for the convenience of the House also to discuss the Amendment in page 2, line 10, at end insert:
and
(f) one member shall be appointed by the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons.
They are related Amendments.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Gordon Touche): Yes, that will be convenient.

Mr. Peart: We want the Levy Board to consist of a chairman and eight other members. We seek to increase the number of members from seven to eight because many of my hon. Friends, and indeed many hon. Gentleman opposite, argue that there should be a representative of the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons on the Board. He would ensure that the purposes of the Bill, as laid down in the Clause, namely,
(a) the improvement of breeds of horses;
(b) the advancement or encouragement of veterinary science or veterinary education …
were carried out, because those are matters of concern to the veterinary profession. The Levy Board should have the advice of a statutory body such as the Royal College, which would be able to advise how grants should be disbursed and used for the purposes stated in the Bill.
We argued this point very fully on Second Reading and in Committee. Now that we are on Report and are approaching Third Reading, it would be wrong for me to go into too much detail, because if I did I should weary the House. I ask the Government to respond to our plea that this responsible statutory body should be represented on the Levy Board.
We do not think that the balance would be upset as between racing interests, the Jockey Club and the other

representatives if the membership of the Board was increased by one, as we suggest. We are certain that the efficiency of the Board in disbursing the money and resources which will go to it for the benefit of racing will be increased.
I hope that I shall not have to argue against the view put forward by some hon. Members previously that the Royal College should not be represented because it will be a beneficiary. I have tried to argue forcibly, and I hope clearly, that in no sense will it be a beneficiary. It is a statutory body with great responsibility. It will have the task of merely giving advice. I argued previously that it occupies the same position vis-à-vis veterinary problems, veterinary science and veterinary education as the Jockey Club does vis-à-vis horseracing. Many hon. Members feel that the Royal College should be represented.
I shall not labour the point, because it has been argued at length already. Many hon. Members disagree with me, and no argument will convince them. However, I hope that those hon. Gentlemen who did not hear the previous debates will support our point of view and that even at this late stage the Minister of State or the Under-Secretary will give a favourable answer.
If the Government do not agree to increasing the number of members and argue that it would overburden the representation, perhaps the Government spokesman will be able to give us his views on whether the Government have an alternative in mind. The Secretary of State has no doubt read the debates. He will realise that this is not a party issue and that there is much support for our proposal.
If the Government feel that they cannot accept the Amendment at this late stage, we want to know what they have in mind. Will they set up a special advisory committee. I have argued this before, and there are precedents for it. There is the example of the Agricultural Research Council, which has an Animal Standing Committee and a Soils Committee, which give specialist advice to the Council on how it should plan its work.
If the Government will not accept the Amendment, will they appoint an advisory committee or will the Secretary


of State, as one of the two members for whom he is responsible, consider appointing somebody with veterinary experience who has national standing?
I press the Government. This is important. I hope that they will accept the Amendment and that there will be one member from the Royal College who will be able to make the work of the Board more effective, more efficient and more balanced and will ensure that money coming from an important section of the industry is used properly and wisely for veterinary education, breeding and research, which make so valuable a contribution to the racing industry.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. David Renton): Since the Committee stage, my right hon. Friends and I have considered this matter of the representation of veterinary interests, but we do not think that it is best dealt with in the way suggested by the Amendment. I shall have various views to put before the House as to how the interests of veterinary science will be protected, and I hope that those views will be acceptable to the Opposition.
Our first reason for not being able to accept the Amendment goes back to the two ideas on the composition of the Levy Board. The first is that it should be a small board, as recommended by the Peppiatt Committee—a board not containing representatives of bodies likely to benefit directly from the levy. The interests of racing, and the various sectional interests which will benefit from the levy will be met by allowing the Jockey Club and the National Hunt Committee to nominate members, who will be expected to represent the interests of racing generally, and to help the Levy Board to consider representations made to it by particular interests. I should point out that neither the Jockey Club nor the National Hunt Committee will benefit directly from the levy.
That is one alternative—the small board. The other idea is that we should have a large board composed like the present Totalisator Board, on which the various racing interests are directly and specifically represented. If we were to accept the Amendment, we should be working towards a large board, because we could not logically exclude other interests that have pressed to be represented

but which have abandoned that position on the understanding that the interests of racing generally, including all the sectional interests, should be represented by the governing bodies of the industry—the Jockey Club and the National Hunt.
This Amendment would, therefore, breach the principle in two ways. First, we should find ourselves with a larger body than seems right, and secondly, it would upset the balance that we have so carefully put to the House—and which I think that the House accepts—between the interests of the bookmakers on the one hand and of the beneficiaries, in the broadest sense—but without particular and direct representation—on the other hand, as represented by the Jockey Club and the National Hunt; and with the chairman and the two independents holding the balance between those two sides.
It is also material to point out that the Amendment would also breach the principle that potential beneficiaries should not be directly represented. We agree that it is important that an adequate amount of the levy should go to veterinary science, and I shall now explain to the House how we contemplate that that will be achieved. It will be achieved because the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons, and any other person or body interested in veterinary education or veterinary research, or in the application of veterinary science, will have an opportunity of making representations of a specific character to the Levy Board.
The Levy Board will be able to accept advice from any of the bodies that are making the representations, but it is charged by the Bill with the duty of weighing up those representations and considering, in relation to the total amount of money available and to other demands on it, how much should be allocated to veterinary science. When the Board forwards the distribution scheme to the Home Secretary, he will be required to approve it, but before finally approving it he may make modifications to it.
5.45 p.m.
It is important, quite obviously, that when the Secretary of State is considering the draft scheme put before him, and considering whether or not it will need modification, he should know what


representations made to the Levy Board have not been embodied in the scheme. Therefore, we intend to make arrangements to ensure that any representations that have been made to the Levy Board are passed on to the Secretary of State. We also intend to ask the new Levy Board, when it has been established, to inform the people whose representations are not accepted that they have not, in fact, been accepted. In those two ways the Secretary of State will be fully seized of any respect in which the Levy Board has not met the representations. I would say that nothing could be more thorough or more fair than that. It will ensure that the interests of veterinary science are safeguarded.
A further factor may interest the House. The Ministry of Agriculture is to a very large extent the sponsoring Ministry, if that is the right expression, for the veterinary profession and for veterinary affairs. It will be open to the Secretary of State to consult the Minister of Agriculture—who has various advisory boards to help him on various aspects of the matter—and it will also be open to the Minister of Agriculture to make representations to the Secretary of State. With this already fairly elaborate existing arrangement available, we feel that it would be unnecessary to set up a fresh advisory body entirely for this purpose. Those are the reasons for our not accepting the Amendment, and those are the alternatives that we put before the House.

Mr. F. A. Burden: It was not until after very careful consideration that, at an earlier stage of our proceedings, I put my name down to an Amendment similar to that in page 2, line 10. I did so because I felt very strongly about this matter—so strongly, indeed, that some of my hon. Friends and I went into the Lobby against the Government. Quite frankly, I am very grateful to my hon. and learned Friend for the concessions that have been made today, but it still seems to be rather odd.
It has now been shown quite clearly that the Government are fully seized of the need for the veterinary profession to be in a position to carry out the duties with which it is charged under the Bill, and know that it is essential that a proper amount of the funds flow to that profession to make sure that all the

measures desired, and for which the money is raised, are being carried out.
My hon. and learned Friend and his right hon. Friend have obviously gone so far in this that I do not see why they could not have gone that little bit further and have accepted a member of the veterinary profession on the Board. It seems to me to be rather odd that it should be claimed that it would open the doors to a whole spate of new applications from other bodies. In fact, of course, all these other bodies which I can think of are in a position quite different from that of members of the veterinary profession who are charged under the Bill with very serious duties in connection with it. The hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) may turn up his nose, but—

Mr. George Wigg: I was not turning up my nose. I was lost in incredulity. The hon. Gentleman comes down here to support a Measure which he has clearly never studied and which he does not understand. I was registering astonishment.

Mr. Burden: The hon. Member for Dudley is known in the House for thinking he knows everything about everything and for trying to be offensive on every occasion he rises to speak.

Mr. Wigg: And succeeding.

Mr. Burden: He has succeeded again, as he says, and it does not do him a great deal of credit.
In fact, of course, the Government have gone a long way in this. I repeat that. The veterinary profession is charged with taking certain steps, through the money that will be allocated to it, to improve the breed of horses. Money will be dispensed for that purpose and for other purposes in connection with veterinary education and investigation.
I believe that it would have been better if a representative of the profession, a nominee of the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons, had been included on the Board. On this occasion, however, if the matter goes to the vote, I shall not accompany right hon. and hon. Members opposite into the Lobby because I really feel that the Minister has gone quite a long way in trying to


meet the wishes of the House. I have no hesitation in saying that, and I am quite sure that in practice he will go much further.

Mr. Ede: After listening to what the hon. and learned Gentleman had to say, I looked at the Government Amendments on the Paper. I could not see that any of the Government Amendments effected the alterations which he was explaining to us. We have asked for a statutory provision. We are being offered assurances that in the administration of the Measure things will be done to enable the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons to make representations to the Levy Board. If there is an Amendment that goes any further than that and if the hon. and learned Gentleman will point it out to me, I shall be in bad company again and find myself in the same Lobby with the hon. Member for Gillingham (Mr. Burden). As far as I can see, no Government Amendment has anything to do with what he has told us.
I am one of the few people—I have been told that I am the only one—who has both been before the stewards and has later called on the stewards to appear before him. I have, therefore, a little knowledge of the way they work. I am not sure whether "work" is the right word. I once heard two chief constables arguing about that sort of thing and one said to the other, "You do not work. Chief constables operate." Perhaps it would be better to say that the stewards of the Jockey Club operate rather than that they work.
When I was chairman of the Epsom Urban District Council, the stewards called me before them. There had been a wet Derby day and many vehicles had been bogged down on Epsom Downs. I am just finishing this illustration, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, to show how these affairs work. The stewards announced that, unless the urban council widened the roads on Epsom Downs, the licence for the course would be withdrawn. That was that.
Some years later, I called the stewards before me to tell them that the Cabinet had decided that certain races would be better run on Saturdays rather than in

the middle of the week, and we hoped that we should have their co-operation. Approaching them in that spirit, very different from their approach on the previous occasion, we reached agreement, I am glad to say. As far as I am concerned, I wish that the big races were still run on a Saturday so that a good many people could attend them who do not do so now because their consciences will not allow them to go.
We are told that the stewards, the representatives of the Jockey Club and the National Hunt, will represent the beneficiaries on the Levy Board but they are not to be beneficiaries themselves. But they are. The whole object of the Bill has been to keep the show going. Owing to the fall in attendances and other matters, there will be nothing for them to be an authority on unless they have the financial assistance which is to come from the Board.
I am disappointed with the answer of the Under-Secretary of State because I think that when there is jostling between the various interests concerned the racecourse executives, the breeders and other people who will draw money under the Bill, veterinary science and the Royal College will find themselves pushed out sometimes.
I like to see horses. I like seeing beautiful horses running on race courses, and I think that the veterinary profession has a distinct part to play in arranging that. After all, one has only to go into the paddock to see the horses parading for one of the classic races and parading for a selling plate to realise the difference that comes when veterinary science is applied to the breeding and maintenance of these animals.

Mr. Eric Johnson: If the right hon. Gentleman looks into the matter, he will realise, I think, that veterinary science is much more likely to be applied to a bad-legged selling plater than to a runner in a classic race.

Mr. Ede: I do not regard that as one of the triumphs of veterinary science. I am bound to say that I do not feel confident that veterinary science and the Royal College will get much out of these arrangements, particularly when they are only administrative arrangements. If I could see something put into


the Bill to ensure that there would be a definite statutory duty placed on the various parties to his scheme, I should feel a great deal happier about it than I am now. I sincerely hope that, if another place will act not as a subcommittee of the Jockey Club but will give its mind to this subject, it may yet be possible to put something into the Bill which will ensure that the interest we are discussing really has the certainty of prime consideration in this matter.

6.0 p.m.

Mr. Stephen McAdden: I had no intention of speaking on these two Amendments, but my hon. and learned Friend the Joint Under-Secretary of State must not provoke me too far. As I understood him, he said that it is important that we should resist these Amendments in order to preserve the very delicate balance which exists on the Levy Board between the bookmakers on the one hand and the various other interests on the other. But it is not a very delicate balance. The odds are four to one against the bookmakers without the independent members. It seems to me that to suggest that four to one against is a delicate balance is defying the law of gravity.
I hope that my hon. and learned Friend will not press the point. If anyone has had a raw deal out of this Bill it is, as far as I can see, the bookmakers who, although they have to provide all the money, have one representative on the Board whereas the Jockey Club has two representatives and the other organisations are equally represented. If my hon. and learned Friend presses this point about a delicate balance too far, in the event of a Division he might drive me to take a course of action which would be repugnant to me. As I am anxious for him to get the necessary representatives on the Board as soon as he can, I content myself with asking him not to press me too far on this issue of balance.

Orders of the Day — ROYAL ASSENT

6.2 p.m.

Message to attend the Lords Commissioners:

The House went:—and, having returned;

Mr. Speaker reported the Royal Assent to:

1. Indus Basin Development Fund Act, 1960.
2. British North America Act, 1960.
3. Administration of Justice (Judges and Pensions) Act, 1960.
4. Expiring Laws Continuance Act, 1960.
5. National Insurance Act, 1960.
6. Ministers of the Crown (Parliamentary Secretaries) Act, 1960.
7. Aberdeen Harbour Order Confirmation Act, 1960.
8. Clyde Navigation Order Confirmation Act, 1960.
9. Forth Road Bridge Order Confirmation Act, 1960.

Orders of the Day — BETTING LEVY BILL

As amended, again considered.

Amendment proposed: In page 1, line 19, leave out "seven" and insert "eight".—[Mr. Peart.]

Question again proposed, That "seven" stand part of the Bill.

6.15 p.m.

Mr. Richard Stanley: I support the Government in refusing the Amendment. I do so not because I do not understand the case—I understand it very much—which the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Peart) put forward. I have great sympathy in many ways with the hon. Member's case, and I hope that the veterinary people get together and have a good committee who put their case properly before the Board.
I spoke against the vets on Second Reading and they have come out against me. The British Veterinary Association describes my statements as utter nonsense. Most of them might be. One of the interesting things which that Association said, however, was that it could X-ray a horse's leg. I am afraid it cannot. One cannot X-ray a horse's


quarters. These people should learn what they are able to do. The right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) talks about how good the classic horses were. That depends upon the breeders and not the vets. They cannot even tell when an animal is going to have twins. They cannot X-ray. Therefore, before the vets say that they must be represented they must get some of their statements right.

Mr. Peart: indicated dissent.

Mr. Stanley: If is all very well for the hon. Member for Workington to shake his head, but why say that they can X-ray the legs of horses when they cannot?
My hon. and learned Friend the Under-Secretary must not have any people represented on the Board who will be beneficiaries. The breeders have far more right than vets to be on the Board. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham (Mr. Burden) knows an enormous amount about the veterinary science and has studied it for many years, but if he came into the racing world he would understand that the vets are practically the greatest beneficiaries of all. They do not make the horses. When something goes wrong, they are called in. The breeding side is done by the breeders, not by the vets, who are called in for entirely technical purposes. If my hon. Friend knew about racing as a whole, he would know these things.
I am delighted that my hon. and learned Friend has resisted the Amendment. If, however, the British Veterinary Association, or whatever the body is, cannot do it itself but wants to put forward its views, I am certain that my hon. and learned Friend will help and will hear its views so that the vets can get their proper share of the money which is to be divided.

Mr. John Morrison: Briefly, I have an interest to declare. I have the same interest as my hon. Friend the Member for North Fylde (Mr. Stanley) as a breeder and owner of thoroughbreds and also as a member of the Jockey Club. Also, I have an interest in the breeding of horses of other kinds, including ponies, not thoroughbreds.
I support my hon. and learned Friend the Under-Secretary in the way he has spoken of the Amendment. I fully appreciate the needs of veterinary work, but when my hon. and learned Friend says that the veterinary side will be able to apply for financial assistance, sending a copy of its application to the Home Secretary so that he may know what is happening, I should like to ask for the same thing to apply to the breed societies, non-thoroughbred, who depend greatly on a little help and who are the nurseries of many good jockeys and help in the horse world generally.

Mr. Wigg: I am astonished at some of the things which have been said, both in this debate and in the previous one. I remember introducing a Private Member's Bill which contained precisely the provisions of Clause I almost word for word. Where was the hon. Member for Gillingham (Mr. Burden) when that Bill was debated? [An HON. MEMBER: "At Newmarket."] Not at all. I will come presently to where I think be was. Other hon. Members who have found an interest in veterinary science were not available in the service of the House for the Second Reading of that Private Member's Bill and so it was counted out.
I do not want to make too much of it, but I am astonished at some of the exchanges we have had with the hon. Member for Gillingham. Perhaps he will forgive me if I pursue them. I am interested in his new-found interest in veterinary science. I think I have tracked it to its source and that one of his female relatives at one time or another must have been interested in budgerigars or something of the kind. It is this passion for these feathered friends that has brought him to the point he is at tonight.
He does not see the simple point made by the Under-Secretary of State, that the principle of this Bill is that of a small and compact board. Very substantial interests, just as important—or who think they are important—have taken a back place because they believe that representations can be made in another way. However strong the case may be—and it is strong—for the Royal College, once the principle is breached the Race Course Association will have to be admitted.
Then there will be great difficulty because, although the Association covers


the courses, how does one equate the interests represented by Ascot or Epsom with Bangor or Market Drayton? It is not merely a question of size. I gave an example during the Committee stage of the course at Wolverhampton, which sees its duty in terms not only of racing but in terms of the community. I want to put right a slip which I made. I talked of the Wolverhampton course as being leased from the local authority by the Wolverhampton Racecourse Company. In fact, the company owns the racecourse and leases it to the local authority.
There is a strong case for representation for various bodies, and before one would know where one was, the 73 racecourses would be represented. Then there are the breeders. This is a model for consultation which may be followed in the future. There are the jockeys and the 20,000 employees of this industry, all of them interested in their welfare. The Government have decided for a small board, and I support them.
At the moment the money for veterinary research is channelled through the Equine Research Association. There is a case here for whatever sum is available to be spent to the best advantage, and there is a strong case also for those who hold that this Bill could have been amended in another way and that there should have been a limit placed—perhaps another place will take that view—in order to confine the expenditure to horses and like breeds. But the position is wisely left as it is.
My hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Peart) should go back to the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons, of which he is such a distinguished member, and tell it of this improved consultative machinery which goes either direct to the Jockey Club or through various ways to the Ministry of Agriculture. The College should give the machinery a run. Not only will it in this way get as much money as it can usefully spend, but a new chapter in the relationship of the veterinary service to racing will have been forged.
The hon. Member for Southend, East (Mr. McAdden) spoke very succinctly and ably. He said he was moved to intervene because he thought that the board was not balanced. Perhaps he would use his influence to try to get the board off to a good start, with the

principle, not of all hands being put into the pot, but of co-operation between the interests for which he speaks—The Jockey Club and the National Committee—so that the board can work in the interests of racing.
Before I wish him a happy Christmas, I say to him that when he states that the money is coming from the bookmakers he should know better. Not a copper is coming from them; it comes from the punters.

Mr. McAdden: What about the Betting Control Board?

Mr. Wigg: It will report, of course, but I as its representative have never made the mistake of deluding myself or my colleagues. The hon. Member has made a slip. He does not believe a word of it.

Mr. McAdden: indicated dissent.

Mr. Wigg: Of course, the money does not come from the bookmakers. It comes from the punters. [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. We seem to be getting a long way from the Amendment.

Mr. Wigg: I want to plead for co-coperation. It will be fatal if the Royal College thinks after this debate that it is being denied the opportunity of making effective representations and is not getting a fair share of the new money that will be available. It would be very unwise if the House upset the basic principle on which this Bill is placed.

Mr. Peart: My hon. Friend the Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) admits that I have a strong case. Perhaps when we have another debate he may concede my case.

Mr. Wigg: No.

Mr. Peart: Of course, my hon. Friend has made up his mind, but at least he admits that I have a strong case. But when he talks of people not understanding a simple point, let him understand one. The Royal College will not be disappointed if this Bill goes through as it is in the sense that it will not now be a beneficiary. I have tried to argue over and over again that the College is not a beneficiary. It is in precisely the same position under this Clause in its concern for veterinary science as the Jockey Club is in its concern for racing.
I wish that he could get that simple point into his head. If I cannot convince him, he will continually oppose what I have said. I am sorry that the Under-Secretary of State will not accept our point of view. He said that it would be a large Board if the Amendment were accepted. It is nonsense to say that the balance of the Board would be upset by the addition of one member. He was answered on that point by the hon. Member for Southend, East (Mr. McAdden).
Then the hon. and learned Gentleman described administrative arrangements, but these arrangements exist already. The Ministry of Agriculture is responsible for the veterinary profession. The chief veterinary officer plays an important part in advising the Minister about the profession.
The Minister of Agriculture, being responsible for the profession, will, I hope, advise the Secretary of State who will be responsible for any scheme. There is a Governmental responsibility here. We are asking that the Levy Board should be made more effective by having added to it a representative of the Royal College.
The College would be able to give advice through such a member. He would also be able to discuss not just the preparation of a scheme but also the day-to-day ordinary administrative workings of the Board. He would be able to give impartial advice about where resources should be used to meet the obligations for veterinary science and education.
6.30 p.m.
They are in no sense beneficiaries. They are merely seeing that the money is farmed out to the right people and organisations who will further veterinary education and science. I am rather surprised that the hon. Member for North Fylde (Mr. Stanley), who is really an expert on racing, should reveal so little knowledge about veterinary science. I am amazed at his speech—

Mr. Stanley: rose—

Mr. Peart: I do not want to delay the House too long. I should like to debate the matter with the hon. Member but I have promised to be brief. He has made his point but I was surprised at

what he said. There is a connection between horse breeding and veterinary science. I am not speaking about veterinary practice as such but about the research that goes on in some of our leading establishments. Many of those establishments are the best in the world and they have given a lead in these matters, particularly in the Commonwealth. I hope that the hon. Member for North Fylde, with his interest in and great knowledge of racing, will go into the problems of veterinary science and will appreciate that even the breeders benefit from veterinary research.

Mr. Stanley: The hon. Member did not give way to me earlier. I am obliged to him for giving way now. He cannot get away with it by saying that I thought that breeders do not receive any benefit from veterinary science. Of course they do. All I say is, and the whole object of my point of order is—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am at present a little puzzled about the point of order.

Mr. Stanley: I was accused by the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Peart), who did not then give way, and I was saying—

Mr. Speaker: I am sorry, but these accusations occur quite often and I am afraid that they do not become points of order.

Mr. Peart: I did not give way at the time to the hon. Member for North Fylde. I hope that I was not being discourteous. I was thinking of the time of the House. We ought to come to a decision and I hope that the hon. Member for Gillingham (Mr. Burden) will not go into the Lobby against us. The Government reply was quite unsatisfactory. I am sorry that we must press the Amendment, but I feel that we should come to a decision now and I hope that the Under-Secretary will not delay us.

Mr. Renton: One thing that I can agree upon is that we ought to come to a decision at once, but I owe it to the right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) to say why we have no Government Amendments on the Order Paper on this point when he feels that we ought to have tabled them. The answer is that no Amendment is needed to enable representations to be made


either to the Levy Board or to the Secretary of State, nor is any Amendment needed to enable the representations which have been received by the Levy Board to be passed on to the Secretary of State or for the people who are concerned to be informed of the result. All that can be done without writing it into the Statute, and it will be done. The only other point is to assure my hon.

Friend the Member for Salisbury (Mr. J. Morrison) that anybody will be able to make recommendations.

Mr. Peart: An unsatisfactory reply.

Question put, That "seven" stand part of the Bill:—

The House divided: Ayes 194, Noes 110.

Division No. 30.]
AYES
[6.34 p.m.


Agnew, Sir Peter
Grimond, J.
Page, John (Harrow, West)


Aitken, W. T.
Grimston, Sir Robert
Pannell, Norman (Kirkdale)


Allason, James
Gurden, Harold
Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe)


Ashton, Sir Hubert
Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough)
Peel, John


Atkins, Humphrey
Harris, Reader (Heston)
Percival, Ian


Balniel, Lord
Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)
Pickthorn, Sir Kenneth


Barber, Anthony
Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)
Pitman, I. J.


Barlow, Sir John
Harvie Anderson, Miss
Pitt, Miss Edith


Baxter, Sir Beverley (Southgate)
Hastings, S.
Pott, Percivall


Beamish, Col. Tufton
Hay, John
Powell, Rt. Hon. J. Enoch


Bell, Ronald (S. Bucks.)
Henderson, John (Cathcart)
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gos &amp; Fhm)
Henderson-Stewart, Sir James
Prior, J. M. L.


Berkeley, Humphry
Hendry, Forbes
Prior-Palmer, Brig. Sir Otho


Bevins, Rt. Hon. Reginald (Toxteth)
Hiley, Joseph
Quennell, Miss J.


Biggs-Davison, John
Hill, Mrs. Eveline (Wythenshawe)
Rawlinson, Peter


Bingham, R. M.
Hill, J. E. B. (S. Norfolk)
Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin


Bishop, F. P.
Hinchingbrooke, Viscount
Rees, Hugh


Black, Sir Cyril
Hirst, Geoffrey
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Bossom, Clive
Hobson, John
Renton, David


Bourne-Arton, A.
Hocking, Philip N.
Ridley, Hon. Nicholas


Box, Donald
Holland, Philip
Roberts, Sir Peter (Heeley)


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. John
Holt, Arthur
Robson Brown, Sir William


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W. H.
Hopkins, Alan
Roots, William


Bryan, Paul
Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hon. Patricia
Russell, Ronald


Bullard, Denys
Howard, John (Southampton, Test)
Scott-Hopkins, James


Bullus, Wing Commander Eric
Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral John
Shaw, M.


Butler, Rt.Hn.R.A.(Saffron Walden)
Hughes-Young, Michael
Shepherd, William


Campbell, Gordon (Moray &amp; Nairn)
Hulbert, Sir Norman
Skeet, T. H. H.


Carr, Compton (Barons Court)
Hurd, Sir Anthony
Soames, Rt. Hon. Christopher


Cary, Sir Robert
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Speir, Rupert


Channon, H. P. G.
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Stanley, Hon. Richard


Chichester-Clark, R.
Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)
Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)


Clark, Henry (Antrim, N.)
Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Stodart, J. A.


Clark, William (Nottingham, S.)
Johnson Smith, Geoffrey
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm


Cleaver, Leonard
Kerans, Cdr. J. S.
Storey, Sir Samuel


Cooper, A. E.
Kerr, Sir Hamilton
Tapsell, Peter


Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.
Kershaw, Anthony
Taylor, E. (Bolton, E.)


Corfield, F. V.
Kirk, Peter
Teeling, William


Costain, A. P.
Lambton, Viscount
Temple, John M.


Critchley, Julian
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.
Linstead, Sir Hugh
Thomas, Lesile (Canterbury)


Currie, G. B. H.
Litchfield, Capt. John
Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin


Dalkeith, Earl of
Lloyd,Rt.Hn.Geoffrey(Sut'n C'dfield)
Tilney, John (Wavertree)


Dance, James
Longbottom, Charles
Turner, Colin


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Loveys, Walter H.
Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.


Digby, Simon Wingfield
Low, Rt. Hon. Sir Toby
Vane, W. M. F.


Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. M.
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Vickers, Miss Joan


Drayson, G. B.
MacArthur, Ian
Vosper, Rt. Hon. Dennis


du Cann, Edward
McLaren, Martin
Wade, Donald


Elliot, Capt. W. (Carshalton)
McLaughlin, Mrs. Patricia
Wall, Patrick


Emery, Peter
McMaster, Stanley R.
Ward, Dame Irene (Tynemouth)


Farey-Jones, F. W.
Maddan, Martin
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Finlay, Graeme
Markham, Major Sir Frank
Whitelaw, William


Fisher, Nigel
Marten, Neil
Wigg, George


Fraser, Hn. Hugh (Stafford &amp; Stone)
Mathew, Robert (Honiton)
Williams, Dudley (Exeter)


Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)
Matthews, Gordon (Meriden)
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Gammans, Lady
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Gardner, Edward
Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.
Woodhouse, C. M.


Gibson-Watt, David
Mills, Stratton
Woodnutt, Mark


Glyn, Dr. Alan (Clapham)
More, Jasper (Ludlow)
Woollam, John


Goodhart, Philip
Morrison, John
Worsley, Marcus


Goodhew, Victor
Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles
Yates, William (The Wrekin)


Gower, Raymond
Neave, Airey



Grant-Ferris, Wg Cdr. R. (Nantwich)
Nicholson, Sir Godfrey
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Green, Alan
Orr-Ewing, C. Ian
Mr. Sharples and Mr. Noble.


Gresham Cooke, R.
Osborn, John (Hallam)





NOES


Abse, Leo
Hamilton, William (West Fife)
Owen, Will


Bacon, Miss Alice
Hannan, William
Paget, R. T.


Blackburn, F.
Hart, Mrs. Judith
Parker, John (Dagenham)


Boardman, H.
Hayman, F. H.
Pavitt, Laurence


Bowden, Herbert W. (Leics, S. W.)
Healey, Denis
Peart, Frederick


Bowles, Frank
Hill, J. (Midlothian)
Prentice, R. E.


Braddock, Mrs. E. M.
Hilton, A. V.
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)


Brockway, A. Fenner
Holman, Percy
Proctor, W. T.


Brown, Alan (Tottenham)
Houghton, Douglas
Pursey, Cmdr. Harry


Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)
Howell, Charles A.
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)


Callaghan, James
Hunter, A. E.
Rogers, G. H. R. (Kensington, N.)


Castle, Mrs. Barbara
Hynd, John (Attercliffe)
Ross, William


Collick, Percy
Jay, Rt. Hon. Douglas
Silverman, Julius (Aston)


Crosland, Anthony
Jones, Elwyn (West Ham, S.)
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)


Crossman, R. H. S.
Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.
Skeffington, Arthur


Cullen, Mrs. Alice
King, Dr. Horace
Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Lawson, George
Small, William


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Ledger, Ron
Snow, Julian


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Lipton, Marcus
Sorensen, R. W.


Deer, George
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank


Delargy, Hugh
MacColl, James
Stewart, Michael (Fulham)


Diamond, John
Mclnnes, James
Stonehouse, John


Dodds, Norman
Mackie, John
Stones, William


Ede, Rt. Hon. Chuter
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Strachey, Rt. Hon. John


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Manuel, A. C.
Taylor, John (West Lothian)


Edwards, Walter (Stepney)
Mason, Roy
Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda. W.)


Evans, Albert
Mellish, R. J.
Tomney, Frank


Fletcher, Eric
Mendelson, J. J.
Warbey, William


Forman, J. C.
Millan, Bruce
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
Milne, Edward J.
Willey, Frederick


Galpern, Sir Myer
Mitchison, G. R.
Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)


Ginsburg, David
Monslow, Walter
Winterbottom, R. E.


Gooch, E. G.
Morris, John
Zilliacus, K.


Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.
Moyle, Arthur



Gourlay, Harry
Neal, Harold
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)
Mr. Redhead and Dr. Broughton.


Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)
Noel-Baker, Rt. Hn. Philip (Derby, S.)

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Dennis Vosper): I beg to move, in page 2, line 11, to leave out "and" and to insert "(3)".

Mr. Speaker: Perhaps it would be convenient to discuss at the same time the Amendment in page 2, line 12.

Mr. Vosper: Yes.
These Amendments give effect to the point raised in Committee by my hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, West (Mr. Wingfield Digby) relating to the appointment of members to the Levy Board. Under the Bill those members can be removed at leisure following the precedent of the Racecourse Betting Control Board. The second Amendment makes it possible to determine the term of office in the instrument for appointing members to the Board for a specified number of years, and it meets the point raised by my hon. Friend.

Mr. Simon Wingfield Digby: May I say "Thank you" to my right hon. Friend for meeting the point I raised in Committee?

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 2, line 12, leave out "(b) or (c) of this" and insert:
of subsection (2) of this section shall hold and vacate office in accordance with the terms of the instrument under which he was appointed, and any person appointed to be a member of the Board under paragraph (b) or (c) of that".—[Mr. Vosper.]

Mr. Renton: I beg to move, in page 2, line 14, at the end to insert:
(3) The Jockey Club, the National Hunt Committee, the Bookmakers' Committee and the Totalisator Board respectively may from time to time appoint a person to act in the place of such a member of the Levy Board as is mentioned in paragraph (b), (c), (d) or (e), as the case may be, of subsection (2) of this section at any meeting of the Levy Board at which that member is unable to be present, and while so acting any such person shall be deemed for the purposes of any act or proceeding of the Levy Board to be a member of that Board.
The Amendment gives expression to the views advanced in Committee, and under it it will be possible for deputies to attend meetings of the Levy Board in place of the Jockey Club and National Hunt Committee representatives and also the chairmen of the Bookmakers' Committee and of the Totalisator Board. But


under the Amendment these deputies must be appointed in advance. They cannot be appointed casually for different occasions. By doing it in this way, we shall ensure continuity of discussion at meetings of the Levy Board.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Vosper: I beg to move, in page 2, line 39, after "Member" to insert:
appointed by the Secretary of State".
The Amendment gives effect to the point raised in Committee by my hon. Friend the Member for Bebington (Sir H. Oakshott) relating to members of the Levy Board being Members of this House. The Amendment disqualifies the chairman and the two independent members appointed by my right hon. Friend, but permits those appointed by other bodies to be Members of this House. I think that on the whole that meets the views expressed in Committee.

Sir Hendrie Oakshott: I rise to say that this completely meets my point, and I warmly thank my right hon. Friend for introducing the Amendment.

Mr. Gordon Walker: Does this connect with the later Amendment—that they are not to be paid—or does it mean that Members of Parliament will be able to be paid out of funds which Parliament has made it possible to raise in the first place? If that is so, it is rather a dangerous principle.

Mr. Vosper: By leave of the House; the members concerned are those appointed by the Jockey Club, the National Hunt Committee, the Bookmakers' Committee and the Totalisator Board. They cannot be paid out of public funds. They can receive expenses, but they cannot be paid.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 3.—(BOOKMAKERS' LEVY SCHEMES.)

6.45 p.m.

Mr. McAdden: I beg to move, in page 4, line 9 at the end to insert:
(d) for the maximum amount payable by way of levy by a bookmaker who falls into the lowest category to be fifty pounds.
I think that my hon. and learned Friend, who I understand will reply, will acquit me of a desire at any stage of

the Bill to obstruct its progress by speaking at great length and indulging in long reminiscences of my past career.
I suggest that the maximum amount payable by way of levy by bookmakers in the lowest category should be £50. It is necessary to clear up some misapprehensions which have been spread abroad—I do not think deliberately—by, among others, the hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) who likes to colour the picture of bookmakers by referring to them as wealthy people who own Bentleys and drive around the country in great luxury. If that were so, that could apply to members of the Jockey Club who are not all that impoverished that they cannot get around without the assistance of the bookmakers to carry on the business of owning race horses.
I am attempting to draw the attention of the House to the fact that, although we undoubedly have some very wealhy bookmakers—the Copes and the Hills and people of that description—the vast majority of bookmakers in this county are very modest people who, if they lost £1,000, would find themselves in serious trouble. They are small bookmakers. The House is about to give Parliamentary sanction to the imposition on every bookmaker of a poll tax of £100 to enable him to carry on business. In addition, the Bill is making him liable to a levy of an unspecified amount which may run into several million of pounds, for all we know, unless there is Parliamentary control.
I am drawing the attention of the House to the fact that the small bookmaker, the one in the lowest category, constitutes about 90 per cent. of the bookmakers in this country. He should at least know where he stands when it comes to the question, as it will in April, of applying for a licence to carry on trading as a bookmaker. He knows that he has to pay £100. Surely he ought to be cognisant of what his liability will be under the Bill. I suggest that the lowest category of bookmaker should not be called on to pay a sum in excess of £50 in addition to the £100 which he will have to pay for permission to carry on his business.
This is a reasonable Amendment and I hope that it will command the general support of hon. Members. I do not mind how much we sting the chaps who


are making packets of money, but it galls me to think that the House of Commons should irresponsibly pass legislation of this description placing such a heavy load on people for carrying on their business when we are unwilling to disclose to them the amount which they should be expected to pay if they happen to fall into the lowest category. If I had more time, I could dilate on this subject, but I have attempted to be brief and I hope that my hon. and learned Friend will appreciate my brevity and will be equally brief and will say that he accepts the Amendment.

Mr. James McInnes: I think that we can leave the Bentleys alone and get down to the merits of the Amendment. I support the Amendment because I am concerned with the interests of the small bookmaker, who, as the hon. Member for Southend, East (Mr. McAdden) said, make up about 90 per cent. of the bookmakers of this country. I also support the Amendment because we are still not certain how the levy scheme will operate. We do not know how much money it will yield.
All sorts of figures have been mentioned. The Peppiatt Committee mentioned the figure of £1¼ million and said that the Jockey Club had made an estimate of £3 million, and the hon. Member for Manchester, Blackley (Mr. E. Johnson) mentioned the figure of £16 million. I think that £16 million is unrealistic, and the Peppiatt Committee thought that the figure of £3 million, suggested by the Jockey Club, was unrealistic.
We do not even know who the beneficiaries are to be, or what sums they are likely to receive. We do not know what type of system will be operated for obtaining the necessary capital. The Bill provides for categorising bookmakers, with which I agree, but we do not know how many categories of bookmakers there are to be, nor for how much the bookmakers in each category will be responsible.
It must be remembered that initially the small bookmaker will have to find the sum of £100 for his betting permit, which is precisely the figure which the large bookmaker has to provide. The Amendment has the merit of giving at

least some indication to the Bookmakers' Committee and the Levy Board of what we consider should be the maximum amount payable by the small bookmakers in the lowest category for which the Bill provides. I am satisfied that the Bookmakers' Committee and the Levy Board will welcome that indication, and I hope that the Amendment will receive the Government's approval.

Mr. Renton: One naturally sympathises with the purpose of the Amendment, but our fear is that if it were added to the Bill, it might defeat its own object. The Peppiatt Committee suggested that the lowest category should be one which involved the payment of £50, but its Report went on to suggest that that category might be sub-divided to give relief to bookmakers making very small profits. We feel that this is a matter which is best left to be decided by the Bookmakers' Committee and the Levy Board in the light of their knowledge of the industry and their experience in operating the scheme and in the light of the total number of bookmakers and the proportion to be found in the lowest categories. We say that the Bill should be flexible and that this decision should be left to the discretion of those on whom the responsibility is placed.
The practical difficulty to which I am obliged to invite the attention of the House is that the limit proposed might well operate to the disadvantage of the small bookmaker, because the minimum figure could easily become the target figure by always having a category calculated to yield £50. Without knowing exactly what the categories are to be, it would be unrealistic to suggest that the lowest category of all should have a maximum of £50. It would be possible to draw the limits of the lowest category so low that hardly any bookmaker fell into it. For those reasons, in practice it would be best not to lay down a particular figure, which might well defeat the purpose of my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Mr. McAdden).

Mr. David Griffiths: I regret the Under-Secretary's reply. Is it fair for a bookmaker in the "silver ring" or next door to the free course to be subjected to a fine which can be imposed and administered by a board which may be quite unsympathetic? I


do not see the difficulties about accepting the Amendment. If we were discussing trade union negotiations, bargaining for wages and conditions and so on, then it could be argued that the minimum often becomes the maximum, but that is not an argument which can be advanced in this case.
The small bookmakers are entitled to be safeguarded. It is true, as my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) said earlier, that it is the punter who pays. It is the consumer who pays in all types of business, but every business is a venture and bookmaking is a business. I implore the hon. and learned Gentleman to reconsider his decision. Many people do not appreciate the position of the smaller bookmakers and it must be remembered that those in the big rings are only a minority. Most bookmakers are to be found in the silver rings and so on. I hope that the hon. and learned Gentleman will reconsider his attitude with a

view to making the Amendment in another place.

Mr. E. Johnson: I am very glad that my hon. and learned Friend has rejected the Amendment. It is a mistake to try to lay down figures before we know anything about the categories. The Bookmakers' Committee is to draw up the scheme and I am sure that it will look after the best interests of not only the smaller but all bookmakers. No one wants to see the smaller bookmaker hardly used. However, this is a dangerous Amendment because it could lead to many abuses and we might find a vast number of bookmakers in the smallest categories. We might even find two categories, low and very low. I think that it is better for the Bookmakers' Committee to be left to draw up the scheme and for the figures to be considered afterwards.

Question put, That those words be there inserted in the Bill:—

The House divided: Ayes 110, Noes 183.

Division No. 31.]
AYES
[7.0 p.m


Abse, Leo
Hart, Mrs. Judith
Paget, R. T.


Bacon, Miss Alice
Hayman, F. H.
Parker, John (Dagenham)


Blackburn, F.
Healey, Denis
Pavitt, Laurence


Boardman, H.
Hill, J. (Midlothian)
Peart, Frederick


Bowden, Herbert W. (Leics, S. W.)
Hilton, A. V.
Prentice, R. E.


Bowles, Frank
Holman, Percy
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)


Braddock, Mrs. E. M.
Houghton, Douglas
Proctor, W. T.


Brockway, A. Fenner
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Pursey, Cmdr. Harry


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Hunter, A. E.
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Brown, Alan (Tottenham)
Hynd, John (Attercliffe)
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)


Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)
Jay, Rt. Hon. Douglas
Rogers, G. H. R. (Kensington, N.)


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Jones, Elwyn (West Ham, S.)
Ross, William


Callaghan, James
Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.
Silverman, Julius (Aston)


Castle, Mrs. Barbara
King, Dr. Horace
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)


Collick, Percy
Lawson, George
Skeffington, Arthur


Crosland, Anthony
Ledger, Ron
Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)


Crossman, R. H. S.
Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)
Small, William


Cullen, Mrs. Alice
Lewis, Arthur (West Ham, N.)
Snow, Julian


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Lipton, Marcus
Sorensen, R. W.


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank


Deer, George
McAdden, Stephen
Stewart, Michael (Fulham)


Delargy, Hugh
Mclnnes, James
Stonehouse, John


Diamond, John
Mackie, John
Stones, William


Dodds, Norman
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Strachey, Rt. Hon. John


Ede, Rt. Hon. Chuter
Manuel, A. C.
Taylor, John (West Lothian)


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Mason, Roy
Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)


Evans, Albert
Mellish, R. J.
Tomney, Frank


Fletcher, Eric
Mendelson, J. J.
Warbey, William


Forman, J. C.
Millan, Bruce
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
Milne, Edward J.
Willey, Frederick


Galpern, Sir Myer
Mitchison, G. R.
Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)


Ginsburg, David
Monslow, Walter
Winterbottom, R. E.


Gooch, E. G.
Morris, John
Wyatt, Woodrow


Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.
Moyle, Arthur
Zilliacus, K.


Gourlay, Harry
Neal, Harold



Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Hamilton, William (West Fife)
Noel-Baker, Rt. Hn. Philip (Derby, S.)
Mr. Howell and Mr. Redhead.


Hannan, William
Owen, Will





NOES


Agnew, Sir Peter
Alport, Rt. Hon. C. J. M.
Balniel, Lord


Aitken, W. T.
Ashton, Sir Hubert
Barlow, Sir John


Allason, James
Atkins, Humphrey
Baxter, Sir Beverley (Southgate)




Beamish, Col. Tufton
Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough)
Page, John (Harrow, West)


Bell, Ronald (S. Bucks.)
Harris, Reader (Heston)
Pannell, Norman (Kirkdale)


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gos &amp; Fhm)
Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)
Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe)


Berkeley, Humphry
Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)
Peel, John


Bevins, Rt. Hon. Reginald (Toxteth)
Hastings, S.
Percival, Ian


Biggs-Davison, John
Hay, John
Pickthorn, Sir Kenneth


Bingham, R. M.
Henderson, John (Cathcart)
Pitman, I. J.


Bishop, F. P.
Henderson-Stewart, Sir James
Pitt, Miss Edith


Black, Sir Cyril
Hendry, Forbes
Pott, Percivall


Bossom, Clive
Hiley, Joseph
Powell, Rt. Hon. J. Enoch


Bourne-Arton, A.
Hill, Mrs. Eveline (Wythenshawe)
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Box, Donald
Hill, J. E. B. (S. Norfolk)
Prior, J. M. L.


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. John
Hinchingbrooke, Viscount
Prior-Palmer, Brig. Sir Otho


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W. H.
Hirst, Geoffrey
Quennell, Miss J.


Bryan, Paul
Hobson, John
Rawlinson, Peter


Bullard, Denys
Hocking, Philip N.
Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin


Bullus, Wing Commander Eric
Holland, Philip
Rees, Hugh


Butler, Rt.Hn.R.A.(Saffron Walden)
Holt, Arthur
Renton, David


Campbell, Gordon (Moray &amp; Nairn)
Hopkins, Alan
Ridley, Hon. Nicholas


Carr, Compton (Barons Court)
Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hon. Patricia
Roberts, Sir Peter (Heeley)


Cary, Sir Robert
Howard, John (Southampton, Test)
Robson Brown, Sir William


Channon, H. P. G.
Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral John
Roots, William


Chichester-Clark, R.
Hughes-Young, Michael
Russell, Ronald


Clark, Henry (Antrim, N.)
Hulbert, Sir Norman
Scott-Hopkins, James


Clark, William (Nottingham, S.)
Hurd, Sir Anthony
Shaw, M.


Cleaver, Leonard
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Shepherd, William


Cooper, A. E.
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Skeet, T. H. H.


Cooper-Key, Sir Neill
Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)
Stanley, Hon. Richard


Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.
Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)


Corfield, F. V.
Johnson Smith, Geoffrey
Stodart, J. A.


Costain, A. P.
Kerans, Cdr. J. S.
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm


Critchley, Julian
Kershaw, Anthony
Storey, Sir Samuel


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.
Kirk, Peter
Tapsell, Peter


Currie, G. B. H.
Lambton, Viscount
Taylor, E. (Bolton, E.)


Dalkeith, Earl of
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Temple, John M.


Dance, James
Linstead, Sir Hugh
Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Litchfield, Capt. John
Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)


Digby, Simon Wingfield
Longbottom, Charles
Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin


Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. M.
Loveys, Walter H.
Turner, Colin


Drayson, G. B.
Low, Rt. Hon. Sir Toby
Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.


du Cann, Edward
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Vane, W. M. F.


Elliot, Capt. W. (Carshalton)
MacArthur, Ian
Vickers, Miss Joan


Farey-Jones, F. W.
McLaren, Martin
Vosper, Rt. Hon. Dennis


Finlay, Graeme
McMaster, Stanley R.
Wade, Donald


Fisher, Nigel
Maddan, Martin
Wall, Patrick


Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)
Markham, Major Sir Frank
Ward, Dame Irene (Tynemouth)


Gammans, Lady
Marten, Neil
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Gardner, Edward
Mathew, Robert (Honiton)
Whitelaw, William


Gibson-Watt, David
Matthews, Gordon (Meriden)
Williams, Dudley (Exeter)


Glyn, Dr. Alan (Clapham)
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Goodhart, Philip
Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Goodhew, Victor
Mills, Stratton
Woodhouse, C. M.


Gower, Raymond
More, Jasper (Ludlow)
Woodnutt, Mark


Grant-Ferris, Wg Cdr. R. (Nantwich)
Morrison, John
Woollam, John


Green, Alan
Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles
Worsley, Marcus


Gresham Cooke, R.
Neave, Airey
Yates, William (The Wrekin)


Grimond, J.
Nicholson, Sir Godfrey



Grimston, Sir Robert
Orr-Ewing, C. Ian
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Gurden, Harold
Osborn, John (Hallam)
Mr. Sharples and Mr. Noble.

It being after Seven o'clock, and leave having been given to move the Adjournment of the House under Standing OrderM

No. 9 (Adjournment on definite matter of urgent public importance). further Proceeding stood postponed.

Orders of the Day — BAHRAINI PRISONERS (ST. HELENA)

7.9 p.m.

Mr. R. T. Paget: I beg to move, That this House do now adjourn.
I commence with a word of explanation. First, I am speaking from this position, at the Dispatch Box—on a matter in which the Navy is but vaguely concerned—only because my voice is almost nil, and it is a great deal easier to use the amplifier. Otherwise I should be speaking from another place. [Laughter.] I am sorry; "another place" has a special meaning.
This matter concerns three prisoners who are at present within the custody of the Governor of St. Helena, that is, they are within the custody of Her Majesty's Government. They were apparently members of a revolutionary group in Bahrain. The object of that revolutionary group appears to have been to secure that some members of some advisory committee on public sanitation should be elected instead of being nominated by the Ruler. It seems a rather limited revolutionary aim.
Also involved here is the fact that some people—nobody suggests that they were any of these prisoners; they were people who might have been their friends—threw some stones at a car containing no less a person than the present Chancellor of the Exchequer. I would ask the House to pay rather special attention to the dates of the events connected with this matter. As a result of these sad and lamentable activities, on 18th December, 1956, the Ruler of Bahrain sent a communication to Her Majesty the Queen which contained this passage:
We beseech you to allow us to make arrangements with the Governor of St. Helena for the reception of the persons who will"—
and hon. Members should note the word "will"—
be sent to that island in accordance with the sentence decided.
That was on 18th December. Four days later, on 22nd December, a court was convened to try these gentlemen, and their trial took place five days after the sending of the communication, on 23rd December. This was a trial of people who on 18th December had not even been charged but concerning whom it

had already been decided that they would be sent to St. Helena. Their sentence had been decided. That seems to be a strictly "Alice in Wonderland" order of proceedings.

Mr. Speaker: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. and learned Member, particularly because of his vocal difficulties, but the rules of the House require me to confine this debate to the matter raised in his application, which was assented to. It is a rather more modern matter than the history in 1956. It concerns the proposal to remove these people from the jurisdiction without due process of law.

Mr. Sydney Silverman: For punishment.

Mr. Paget: I respectfully agree that those are the terms of the Motion, Mr. Speaker. What I am seeking to argue here is that the grounds which the Government have claimed in order to justify what they propose to do is an agreement with the Sheik of Bahrain. I shall argue shortly that there is nothing at all, either in that agreement or in the Act under which it operates, to obligate them to surrender these people, that in the light of what has happened it is not something which they ought to do unless they are obligated. I can assure you. Mr. Speaker, that I shall do it very shortly indeed, for many reasons.
The next thing that happened was on 26th December, when these gentlemen, who had then been charged and convicted—all on the same day—of the attempted assassination of the Ruler and the overthrow of the Government, were sentenced to fourteen years' imprisonment, although nobody has ever disclosed what the evidence was. As had been arranged before the trial, they were then to be sent to St. Helena, where the sentence which had been decided upon was to be carried out. They were put on a British warship, the "Loch Insh"—that is the naval connection—to be taken to St. Helena.
Something rather interesting happened then. The request made both by the Government of Bahrain and the Governor of St. Helena had been made under the Colonial Prisoners Removal Act, and that did not apply to Bahrain. A special order was made to apply it to Bahrain and, according to the terms of the Act, that order came into operation


when it was published in Bahrain—and it was published in Bahrain on 28th December, 1956, two days after these unhappy men had gone. I should have thought that on any ground at all their removal was totally illegal. But I am not concerned with that; let us assume that it was legal. It was not compulsory. There is nothing in the law, and there never was anything in the law, that compelled Her Majesty's Government to make themselves assistants and executioners in this sort of justice.
The men were brought up by the Ruler, before a special court composed of the Ruler's relations, to receive a sentence which the Ruler stated had been decided five days before the trial. Are those the sort of proceedings which Her Majesty's Government ought to assist? Ought Her Majesty's Government to assist them now? If these facts had been known to the House in December, 1956, this would not have happened. The House would never have allowed the Government to do it. No Government could have done this in face of the indignation which would have arisen in the House if it had known the facts. But having done it, ought the Government to go on with these proceedings?
Their excuse is that we are obligated to return these prisoners to Bahrain by reason of our agreement with the Ruler. The Government seem to be on the horns of a dilemma. The Colonial Prisoners Removal Act applies between Colonies. It is applicable to Bahrain only in so far as Bahrain is a Colony.
This matter has been before the Privy Council, and I am not discussing the legal aspect of it for a moment. But what is decided there is that this Act puts the Ruler of Bahrain in the position of a colonial governor. If he is in the position of a colonial governor he is subject to the directions of Her Majesty's Government. If he is not in that position but is an independent ruler, then the Act does not apply and there is no legal authority to return these men at all. The Government must make up their mind one way or the other. Is the Sheik of Bahrain a colonial governor within the meaning of this Act, in which case they can return these men to him, but he is under their direction? Or is he an independent ruler with whom they have made

a separate agreement? If that is so, then he is outside the Act and there is no power to return these men. That is the simple and direct point which I put to the Government, and I say that is the dilemma with which they are faced.
For convenience and for the record will read the relevant document. This is an agreement between the Governor of St. Helena and the Ruler of Bahrain. This is the Governor of Bahrain speaking. He said:
… by this document … we have agreed with the Governor of St. Helena upon the removal of the said persons from Bahrain to St. Helena for the said period or until we agree to their return to Bahrain.
That is until the Ruler of Bahrain agrees. That is an agreement within the Act if it be an agreement between two colonial governors and therefore, by definition, two people within our agreement. If it is not, then it is outside the Act because the Act—I have it here; it is the Colonial Prisoners Removal Act, 1869—provides as follows:
Any two colonies may, with the sanction of an order of Her Majesty in Council, agree for the removal of any prisoners under sentence or order of transportation, imprisonment, or penal servitude from one of such colonies to the other for the purpose of their undergoing in such other colony the whole or any part of their punishment, and for the return of such prisoners …
As the House will see, this is confined to Colonies, to the agreement of governors, to operations within our jurisdiction, to operations within our control. That is what the Act sanctions. It does not sanction—it was never intended to sanction and it would be against our principles for it to sanction—the return of people from our jurisdiction to those who are not our Colonies in the sense that we have any control over what happens to the unfortunate people when they get there. We have seen what happened to them once their conviction and sentence was decided before their trial. On that the Ruler of Bahrain is on record. It would be wrong for Her Majesty's Government to return those men in these circumstances.

7.25 p.m.

Mr. Patrick Wall: The hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) has based his case, first, on the fact that these men were unjustly tried; secondly, on the fact that the Ruler


of Bahrain is a despot and, thirdly, on the fact that the prisoners should not have been accepted into our custody as they were unjustly tried. I do not wish to enter into a long legal argument because I am sure that a lot of my hon. Friends who know more about the law than I would wish to speak. But I desire to make this point to the House. These men were members of the Higher Executive Committee in Bahrain which was formed in 1954, and from 1954 to 1956 this Committee was responsible for strikes, unrest and disturbances in the island. They were supported by the Governments of Syria, Egypt—

Mr. William Yates: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I understood your Ruling to be that in order that this debate should not stray too far from the narrow paths of the Adjournment Motion matters outside the removal from jurisdiction should not be discussed.

Mr. Speaker: That is perfectly true, save only this, that I did allow the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) to urge, on the merits as he put it, why this removal should not take place and to that extent to look at the history. But it is a very narrow line and I was just; about to stop the hon. Member for Haltemprice (Mr. Wall). I hope he will bear that in mind.

Mr. Wall: If I may, I will leave this point by saying that these men had been in rebellion against their lawful master the Ruler of Bahrain—[HON. MEMBERS: "Master?"]—the Ruler. I think I shall remain within the rules of order if I may be allowed to quote from an account of the trial, a very short account, because the point has been made from the opposite side of the House that the trial was really unfair. May I quote from two letters—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am sure that is out of order because, had it been included in this Motion in any way, it would not have resulted in the application being granted.

Mr. Wall: I bow to your Ruling, Mr. Speaker, but I think I can point out that there is considerable diversity of opinion about whether this trial was just or not. A lot of people hold that it was wholly just and within the law.
It had been the custom in Bahrain that long-term prisoners should be sent to the Andaman Islands. Therefore, it seems to me that the Ruler was perfectly right in asking that Her Majesty's Government should accept these prisoners, should they be found guilty. That seems to be an explanation of the story put up—

Mr. J. T. Price: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I submit to you that all these references to the legality of the trial are quite beside the point, because so far as the clear history of this case shows anything at all, it shows that there was no code of law of any kind whatever in Bahrain at the time of these events. Therefore, it cannot be correct to argue that these men were convicted according to law. I am not concerned with the merits of whatever offence they committed—that could be argued all night—but I am saying, with a direct reference to the way the debate is going, that there was no code of law whatever in existence in Bahrain at the time of the events.

Mr. Speaker: It is essential that hon. Members keep in mind the limits of this debate. The question is the proposal of Her Majesty's Government to remove these prisoners without due process of law from within the jurisdiction out of the jurisdiction and there is added "for punishment". To deal with that part of the matter, I conceive it to be right to allow a degree of argument that we ought not to assist the removal unless we are obligated, as the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) said. But there is clearly a line where the description of past history passes from discussing the equitable or inequitable character of the proposed removal.

Mr. Wall: Perhaps on that point of order I may point out that the criminal code was introduced in Bahrain in 1955, so that there was a criminal code in existence at the time.
I was making the point that it was customary for this country to hold long-term prisoners by agreement. It was also customary to return those prisoners to Bahrain at the end of their sentence or when the Ruler so requested, and that is all that happened in this case.

Sir Godfrey Nicholson: May I ask a question which might enlighten the House a great deal? Was the Colonial Prisoners Removal Act invoked or not?

Mr. Wall: I understand that it was invoked, but I am no expert on these rather involved legal points.

Mr. Paget: It was not invoked. It had never been applied to Bahrain until 23rd December, 1956.

Mr. Wall: I find it extremely difficult to continue my argument and remain within the rules of order. I think the point has been made forcibly about the justification of the trial. The reason these people were held in custody was that it was customary so to do for long-term prisoners and there is nothing extraordinary in holding these prisoners or other long-term prisoners. That was the custom at the time and it was customary to return them to the Ruler when their sentence was finished, or when their return was requested. I find nothing unusual in it at all. I much regret the attacks on the Ruler, who has been a very loyal ally of this country.

7.31 p.m.

Mr. John Stonehouse: After the speech of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) and the remarks which you, Mr. Speaker, have made in relation to the terms of this debate, I feel in entering it rather like a non-lawyer fearing to tread, but I am encouraged by the speed made by the hon. Member for Haltemprice (Mr. Wall), because I believe that if we are to examine this case in the way in which our constituents would want it examined we must draw some attention to the background circumstances in which these men were imprisoned.
You, Mr. Speaker, accepted this matter on the basis of it being an urgent matter and also on the basis of it being a matter of public importance. I submit that it is a matter of public importance because the Government and the integrity of the Government are under question, bearing in mind the circumstances under which these men were arrested and imprisoned. The background is that the present Chancellor of the Exchequer, who was then Foreign Secretary, was on his way to a meeting of the South-East Asia Treaty Organisation.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I cannot allow the hon. Member to do it this way or the debate will go wholly out of bounds. He is entitled to discuss past history in my view, as I have ruled, in so far as he is urging that this is not an operation which Her Majesty's Government should equitably assist, but not further than that. The sort of past history he is now relating would be out of order and not related to urgency.

Mr. Stonehouse: I am submitting that Her Majesty's Government have behaved most dishonourably throughout this case. I do not wish to make that allegation without explaining the background, because the allegation cannot be made unless the House is aware of the circumstances of the case and the background.

Mr. Speaker: It cannot be made in order in that way on this Motion. What is under discussion is the proposal to remove these people in certain circumstances

Mr. S. Silverman: I am sorry to interrupt my hon. Friend the Member for Wednesbury (Mr. Stonehouse), but a great many of us are interested in this matter. The question we shall be called upon to decide at the end of the debate is whether the Government are justified in doing what they propose to do as described in the Motion, that is to say, return these people who are now in our custody and within our jurisdiction for punishment in a territory outside it. Surely it would be very difficult for us to decide that question honestly on the evidence unless we know exactly how they came to be within our jurisdiction in the first place. I submit with great respect, Mr. Speaker, that that must be relevant to the argument.

Mr. Speaker: It remains my view that what is relevant in that context to the argument on this Motion is saying that the Government are assisting or not assisting in this removal that which is an equitable or inequitable or a just or unjust transaction, but that relates to the present point of time of the proposed removal.

Mr. Silverman: The words of the Motion at the end are "for punishment". That means for punishment elsewhere, punishment not in our jurisdiction. It may be right in some circumstances to


do that and wrong in other circumstances to do that, but part of those circumstances must be the character of the justice and the character of the punishment which would be inflicted upon these men if the Government were allowed to do as they propose.

Mr. J. T. Price: Further to that point of order. May I submit that in a technical sense, irrespective of the merits of the case, when the men were tried by the Ruler of Bahrain, the punishment awarded at that trial, rightly or wrongly, was fourteen years' imprisonment. The Ruler had decided with his family court to send these men to gaol for fourteen years. It was found inconvenient to incarcerate them in a prison in Bahrain and the co-operation of the British Government was sought through the usual channels—[Laughter.]—I shall correct that, through the unusual channels of this most extraordinary situation, to transfer them, like Napoleon, to St. Helena. Now they are in our jurisdiction. I think it most reasonable for my hon. Friend to submit that we cannot discuss even the jurisdiction question unless the House has some passing knowledge of how they came into our jurisdiction.
We are claiming tonight that these men should not be removed outside our jurisdiction until they are released and should not be sent back to punishment at the whim of the Ruler of Bahrain.

Mr. Speaker: I cannot help the House more than to read the governing sentence from page 374 of the current edition of Erskine May, which says:
No matter can be raised incidentally which would have been out of order if it had been included in the terms of the motion, when leave was asked, on any of the grounds mentioned in the preceding section.
That refers back to the various sections of the text which put limits on the granting of applications to move the Adjournment of the House. That is the rule the House has to apply and which I have to apply.

Mr. S. Silverman: The word "incidentally" there must be an argument referring to a fact of history which is irrelevant to the matter which the House is discussing. Although we cannot go into details or discuss the merits of it one way or the other, if it is a necessary

part of the argument to refer to it we ought not to be excluded from doing so. I refer you, Mr. Speaker, to the large number of occasions when the House and the Government have refused to return aliens to jurisdictions where our standards of justice do not apply precisely for that reason, because we would not expose them to political persecution by standards which would not be recognised in our courts. If that were our reason for refusing tonight, how could it be out of order to discuss whether the proposed jurisdiction to which the men are to be sent is in accordance with our standards of justice or not?

Mr. Speaker: I agree with what the hon. Gentleman began to submit to me, namely, the distinction between "incidental" and "relevant". That draws us back to what is and what is not relevant in the context in which we speak, but does not get us much further. My present impression is that the reason why they became involved in some imposed sentence is not relevant in the context of the proposal to remove them back. What might happen in the circumstances as to punishment in future might be, but that is different. I think that when I stopped the hon. Member for Wednesbury (Mr. Stonehouse) he was apparently starting out at the beginning of the history of the story.

Mr. Stonehouse: I wish to reply to one point made by the hon. Member for Haltemprice (Mr. Wall). I shall do that briefly by quoting from The Times of 15th March, 1956, which said:
Political parties do not exist. He rules autocratically and has responded slowly to demands that he associate a wide range of his subjects in government.
The gentlemen in question were organising a group asking for reforms. In November, 1956, British troops were moved into Bahrain arising out of protest meetings in Bahrain by the people of Bahrain against the British-French intervention in Egypt. This, I submit, is one of the reasons why Her Majesty's Government have been behaving dishonourably in relation to this case. The reason is that the men were arrested in Bahrain because they were alleged to have been associated with protest meetings against the Conservative Government's Suez operation. It is necessary that we get this into perspective, and I


would be very glad if, in replying to the legal points I wish to raise later in this debate, the Government will make clear why it is that they have behaved in this most peculiar manner in relation to the legal forms to be operated in regard to the imprisonment of these men. It is my submission that they have behaved in this way because it was convenient for them to get rid of these men. It was not only convenient to the Sheik of Bahrain but it was convenient to Her Majesty's Government to have these men locked up. Further, I imagine that it was at the instigation of Her Majesty's Government that these men were moved to St. Helena and not, initially, at the request of the Sheik of Bahrain, in order that Her Majesty's Government could be responsible for the custody of these men.
I do not want to go too much into the background of the case because, Mr. Speaker, you want to keep the debate to a fairly narrow point. However, I do want to make this point, arising out of the Privy Council's consideration of the case. The Times had an editorial on it on 3rd June this year, which ended with these words:
Meanwhile, with the hearing completed, a gesture of clemency to the St. Helena prisoners would be widely welcomed.
That, I submit, is an expression of view not only on the part of The Times but one which, I think, reflects the view of the overwhelming mass of people in this country supporting all the main political parties. I submit that public opinion generally would be absolutely horrified if these three men are returned to Bahrain, where they will almost certainly be subject to the most awful cruelties at the hands of the Ruler of Bahrain. I submit that public opinion would be horrified, and I believe it to be in accordance with the long tradition of British justice to ensure that these men have an opportunity of appealing to a British court of law before their case is decided against them.
I wish to refer to the circumstances under which these men were removed to H.M.S. "Loch Insh" on 28th December, 1956. This, as far as Her Majesty's Government are concerned, is the beginning of the illegality of this case. The men were removed from Bahrain to the jurisdiction of Her Majesty's Government—namely, to the jurisdiction of the

Captain of H.M.S. "Loch Insh"—without the necessary process of law being followed; that is, the issue of the publication of an Order in Council under the Colonial Prisoners Removal Act. Publication as far as Bahrain is concerned would be the posting of the Order in Council outside the offices of the political resident in Bahrain. The men were removed to the ship at 4 a.m. on the morning of 28th December, which is most likely before any Order in Council was published in Bahrain. This is where the illegality comes in.

Mr. John Hobson: Surely that was one of the points taken before the Privy Council, which decided that there was no illegality.

Mr. Stonehouse: That point was not taken before the Privy Council, and it it for that reason that I am now referring to it. It was specifically excluded because specific information was not available. According to the information available to the legal advisers of the Bahraini prisoners, an approach was made to the Colonial Office legal advisers on 26th October last in order that this point could be clarified, and the legal advisers at the Colonial Office told the legal advisers to the Bahraini prisoners in this country that, as a matter of urgency, further information would be obtained. I should like to ask Her Majesty's Government what they have been doing since that date. Is it not time that they obtained this information? Are they not aware that the legal advisers to the Bahraini prisoners wish to apply to a writ of habeas corpus on the basis of the information that they proposed to obtain on 26th October? There is a very strong suspicion that the present arrangements being made for the return of these three men to Bahrain are being made because the Government refuse to make this information available because they know that they are, or have been, acting illegally in this case ever since the men were removed to the ship on 28th December, 1956.

Sir Peter Agnew: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, I am rather puzzled to know exactly how you would rule on the conduct of this debate. How can it be—I do not quite understand—in order to


question the legal validity under which the men, apparently, were transferred in custody from Bahrain to St. Helena on a Motion under Standing Order No. 9 which seeks to question the validity or propriety of transferring these men back to Bahrain? How wide should the debate be?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Major Sir William Anstruther-Gray): The hon. Gentleman has good reason for raising his point of order. Perhaps it would be for the convenience of the House if once again I read out what I understand to cover the relevance of this debate. It is on page 374 of Erskine May:
The debate on such a Motion … is confined strictly to the matter with regard to which leave to move the Adjournment of the House was obtained.
It is my duty to try to keep the debate within those limits.

Mr. Paget: Further to that point of order. This is a rather important point. The Adjournment was moved in order to prevent these men being moved without due process of law. If, as I understand it, my hon. Friend the Member for Wednesbury (Mr. Stonehouse) is right in saying that these men are in St. Helena illegally and that the intention has been to move them so as to prevent a writ of habeas corpus being issued upon the new ground, as to which the Government are aware that there is no answer, it seems to me that the position is that, since they are in illegal custody in St. Helena, we have no power or right over them and cannot move them with due process of law. That is, on this point, precisely within the Motion.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The case as stated by the hon. and learned Member seems to me quite in order. Perhaps if the hon. Member who has the Floor will continue we can keep the debate as it should be.

Mr. Stonehouse: Mr. Deputy-Speaker, my point is that the Government are well aware that, arising out of the interview on 26th October, the legal advisers of these prisoners are preparing proceedings for habeas corpus and are awaiting further information which the Legal Adviser to the Colonial Office was proposing to provide as a matter of urgency.
That was two months ago. If the Government now return these men, apparently

with great haste, to Bahrain, it will short-circuit the due processes of law of which the Government have already been advised. That is our case.
I want to ask the Government for two undertakings. First, will they now undertake not to return these men to Bahrain until they have provided all the relevant information which they promised to provide on 26th October? Secondly, will they undertake to give a full statement to the House when we return from the Christmas Recess about the manner in which these men will be returned so that the House will have a further opportunity to consider the Minister's statement before the men go back?
I seek those undertakings because I believe that the public—this is not a party political point—will expect us to get them from the Government, The Government will be covered in shame if they do not concede this point. We do not ask them to release the men now. We ask them to hold up the return of the men to Bahrain so that full consideration of the case can be undertaken.
I want to refer to a very curious aspect of the case involving Her Majesty's Ministers. It also concerns the illegality of which I have been speaking. It is the publication in the Government Gazette of St. Helena on 22nd December, 1956, of an announcement which read as follows:
An urgent request made on behalf of Her Majesty's Government was recently received by His Excellency the Governor, as to the possibility of arranging for the detention in St. Helena of five subjects of the Ruler of Bahrain in the Persian Gulf convicted of political offences.
After discussing all aspects of this offence with the Executive Council, the Governor informed the Secretary of State for the Colonies of his concurrence in the proposed arrangement.
It is expected that these persons will be brought to St. Helena in one of Her Majesty's ships in the latter part of January, and that they will be detained at Munden's.
I now quote from an article by Mr. Bernard Levin, entitled "The Prisoners of St. Helena", which appeared in the Spectator of 1st July:
And so indeed they were, and are. But since their trial for political offences' did not begin until 23rd December, the day after the publication in the St. Helena Government Gazette of the announcement that they would shortly be coming there, convicted, it seems to me that the Extraordinary Issue of the St. Helena Government Gazette was Extraordinary


in more than a technical sense, and that the case to whose outcome it so prophetically referred before it had started will bear investigation. And, as will be seen, the case becomes more extraordinary, and for that matter more disquieting, as investigation proceeds.
This matter has not yet been cleared up. We have asked Questions in the House about it, but we have had evasion after evasion from Her Majesty's Ministers. I raised the matter in a supplementary question to the Lord Privy Seal some weeks ago. He asked me to table a further Question about it. I tabled a further Question to him, but it was transferred to the Colonial Secretary. It was due to come up today for a Written Answer. I have not yet received the Answer.
What I want from the Government tonight is a clear explanation of the circumstances under which the Extraordinary Issue of the St. Helena Government Gazette published the fact of the conviction of these men before the trial took place.
Unless the Government give that explanation, it is obvious that they have been acting illegally in this whole matter. The House is entitled to a full explanation before we proceed to give them authority to return the men to Bahrain.
It has been suggested that these men have not applied for political asylum and that therefore the original point we raised was not in order. The men are anxious to be free. They are anxious, above all, not to be returned to Bahrain. Therefore, it is quite obvious to anybody endowed with the requisite amount of common sense that they would want to apply for political asylum.
Quite apart from that common sense approach, I have in my hands a letter from the solicitors acting for these men, which reads as follows:
On behalf of my clients imprisoned in St. Helena, we apply for political asylum to be granted to them.
I will, if necessary, hand this letter to the Lord Privy Seal so that he will have in his hands the appeal from the solicitors appointed to act on behalf of these prisoners, which makes it quite clear that these men are applying to Her Majesty's Government for political asylum.
It is on that basis that I ask for a clear assurance that the political asylum

which has been applied for will not be refused until the House has had an opportunity of considering the statement from the Minister.
I therefore make these quite simple requests to the Government. I ask, first, that the Government undertake not to return these men to Bahrain during the Christmas Recess. Secondly, I ask the Government to make a further statement to the House about this case when we return from the Christmas Recess. Thirdly, I ask that the Government consider the legality or illegality of the case and make a full statement to the House, either tonight, if the information is available to them, or when we return after the Christmas Recess. Fourthly, I ask that the Government give the fullest possible information to the legal advisers to the Bahraini prisoners, as they promised to do on 26th October, so that the proceedings which the solicitors wish to take may be taken before the men are removed from our jurisdiction.
I make no apologies for having raised this case today. I apologise to the House for the fact that the business has been interrupted, particularly as I know that the House is anxious to finish our business before we rise for the Recess. However, I believe that the public at large will be pleased that at this time, the season of good will, we have turned our attention from other business before the House to consider the freedom of three men.

8.0 p.m.

The Lord Privy Seal (Mr. Edward Heath): I thought that it might, perhaps, be far the convenience of the House if I were to intervene at this stage and then, if any questions arose after that, the House might give me leave to deal with them. This House is always extremely jealous of individual liberties and rights, and rightly so, and the case that we are now debating is a very difficult and complicated one.
I should like to put the facts of the case before the House as simply and clearly as I can. I do not wish to go over the back history, Mr. Deputy-Speaker; I shall try to adhere to your Ruling. There are certain facts that I want to place on the record, and as I have said, perhaps I may be allowed later to answer points already raised by those hon. Members who have spoken.
First of all, I should like to place on record that the names of the three Bahrainis at present in detention at St. Helena are Abdul Rahman Al Bakir, Abdul Aziz Shamlan, and Abdul Ali Alaiwat. They were detained, with two other men, by the Ruler of Bahrain after the disturbances of November, 1956.
Then I come to the fact that they were charged in the court of the Ruler, and I put on the record that the charges were charges of attempting to assassinate the Ruler and his Adviser; attempting to overthrow the Government; attempting to depose the Ruler, and organising a general strike and demonstrations without violence. All five men were convicted on all four charges and the sentences imposed on them were, for the three men now in St. Helena, sentences of 14 years' imprisonment. This sentence was later reduced by the Ruler, on the occasion of celebration and local rejoicing, to 13 years' imprisonment. The two remaining men were sentenced to ten years in prison, and they are still in prison in Bahrain. I wish to emphasise that there are two men who were sentenced at the same time who are still imprisoned in Bahrain.
A point has been raised about the nature of the trial. I wish to say nothing about this, except to point out that it was dealt with before the Privy Council. The Privy Council's view is expressed in page 9 of the judgment, where it says:
It was at one stage suggested that the circumstances attending trial before the special court were such as to preclude its recognition as a valid judicial proceeding. This objection was not pressed, and their Lordships are satisfied that it is without substance.
That is the view of the Privy Council on the nature of the trial—

Mr. S. Silverman: No—not on the nature of the trial.

Mr. Heath: Well, on whether
… the circumstances attending trial before the special court were—

Mr. Silverman: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. The right hon. Gentleman appears to be going into not merely the facts as they happened at the beginning of this unhappy story, but the rights and wrongs of the procedure of the trial, and the administration of justice in Bahrain. I have no objection to that being allowed provided that the rest of

us are also allowed to discuss it, but I had understood from Mr. Speaker's previous Rulings that it was exactly that which we were not allowed to discuss.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: This shows how easy it is to go too far in indulgence. I was listening to a great deal of history in some doubt as to whether or not I was right to allow it. The right hon. Gentleman is now seeking to reply, and what is right for one side must be right for both sides.

Mr. Silverman: I am very grateful to you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, for that Ruling, but I am anxious that I should understand it aright. For many of us, a great part of our objection is the character of these proceedings in the first place. If you are now ruling that after the right hon. Gentleman's speech we shall be entitled to challenge that, we shall all be very grateful.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I think that the hon. Gentleman is carrying me too far. I read out earlier in the debate what it is that governs these rules of order. A little give and take usually takes place. It may be that I gave too much but, having given to one side, I conceive it my duty to give to the other, and I hope that the House will not take advantage of that to have the debate quite out of order.

Mr. Heath: I was only answering a point raised by the hon. Gentleman opposite, and was merely quoting from the Privy Council proceedings. I do not wish to quote any further—

Mr. Paget: As I understand it, what the Privy Council held was that within the law—or, if there was no law, within the custom—of Bahrain, this special court was a court of jurisdiction. It did not say that the proceedings, as conducted on the basis that a sentence had been decided before the trial, or anything like that, was a trial of which it could approve, but merely that it was a form of Procedure which appeared to be within the law or custom of Bahrain.

Mr. Heath: I was quoting the point about whether or not it was a valid proceeding—

Mr. Silverman: In Bahrain.

Mr. Heath: In Bahrain.

Mr. Silverman: Nothing to do with the nature of the trial.

Mr. Heath: A valid judicial proceeding—

Mr. Silverman: In Bahrain.

Mr. Heath: In Bahrain—that is not challenged. The Privy Council has said that it is satisfied that the argument that this was not a valid proceeding is without substance—

Mr. Silverman: rose—

Mr. Heath: I cannot give way again.

Hon. Members: Order.

Mr. Silverman: If the right hon. Gentleman will give way, I shall not keep him a moment—

Mr. Heath: I have given way a large number of times, and I have listened to the hon. Member interrupting many times from where he is sitting—

Mr. Silverman: The right hon. Gentleman has given way not at all.

Mr. Heath: I do not wish to argue this point. The point I was making is that, whatever one's view of the proceedings is, they were under the jurisdiction of the Ruler of Bahrain and were not, therefore, in any way the responsibility of Her Majesty's Government. It was entirely the responsibility of the Ruler, and it remains so.
The hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) asked about the legislative powers or legislative responsibilities of this country in relation to Bahrain, and tried to compare those responsibilities with those of a Colonial Governor—say, St. Helena, which has a Colonial Governor. The legislative responsibilities or rights of this country were also described in page 7 of the judgment of the Privy Council. I do not propose to read that out—it takes a full page—but it defines precisely the legislative responsibilities under which the Act was extended in this particular case.
After the sentence, the Ruler made a request—and I wish here to deny the accusation made by the hon. Member for Wednesbury (Mr. Stonehouse); this was not suggested by Her Majesty's Government—the request came from the Ruler

—that these three men should be detained somewhere outside Bahrain. The request was one from the Ruler himself, and Her Majesty's Government acceded to it because of the fears of the Ruler that, with the tension there was in the Middle East at that time, there would be further disturbances in these men were detained in Bahrain itself—

Mr. W. Yates: Will my right hon. Friend tell us who the Adviser to the Ruler was—or the legal adviser to the Ruler? Was he a British person?

Mr. Heath: The name of the Adviser is well known, and, of course, he is British—Sir Charles Belgrave.
The request came from the Ruler, and was not inspired in any way by Her Majesty's Government—

Mr. Donald Wade: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether the request was made before or after the trial, or—

Mr. Silverman: Or before or after the sentence.

Mr. Heath: Yes—before the trial and the wording shows that it was "in the event of conviction"—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—that was why the request was made—[Interruption.] Surely, it is in order to ask for facilities in the event of their being required.

Mr. Paget: I am most grateful to the right hon. Gentleman; he has been most kind in giving way. The request contained words saying that the sentence had been decided and that the men would be detained. That is the request, and it is five days before the trial.

Mr. Heath: I have another quotation to give. I will try to give it to the hon. and learned Member when I reply.

Mr. James Callaghan: I realise that this is a difficult matter for the right hon. Gentleman and perhaps for others. My hon. Friend the Member for Wednesbury (Mr. Stonehouse) did make the point that it was a conditional request but it in fact implied—indeed, it said—that a decision had been taken right at the beginning. Why cannot the Minister tell us now what is the Government's view about it? What sort of additional views does he expect to hear between now and the end of his speech? Why delay his reply?

Mr. Heath: I do not wish to delay my reply. I wish to find a quotation to read to the House. If I am given a little time, I will do so. I have a mass of documents here.

Mr. William Warbey: Then may I help the right hon. Gentleman?

Mr. Heath: In order to meet this request, the Colonial Prisoners Removal Act, 1869, was extended by Order in Council and two Orders were passed under it relating to these prisoners This was challenged—

Mr. Eric Fletcher: In order to complete the record, will the Minister agree that before the Order in Council was passed the Political Resident in Bahrain—here I quote from the judgment of the Privy Council—
orally informed the Adviser that Her Majesty's Government were willing to arrange for the removal of the men to a British possession to undergo any sentences which might be passed upon them, and that the Government of St. Helena had signified its willingness to receive them.
That is before any trial, before any conviction, before any sentence and before any Order in Council.

Mr. Heath: The hon. Gentleman has quoted the words—
any sentences which might be passed".
If sentences were not passed, obviously the men could not be detained. That is the position of the Government.

Mr. Callaghan: I am much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way. Will he allow me—I thought he would probably come with these words—to quote to him the actual words:
We beseech you to allow us to make arrangements with the Governor of the island of St. Helena for the reception of the persons who will be sent to that island in accordance with the sentence decided. Always, Your Majesty, placing confidence in a response to our request. May God keep you in his care.
This was sent before the trial took place.

Mr. Heath: I am aware of that quotation, which was produced by the hon. Member for Wednesbury. The hon. Member for Islington, East (Mr. Fletcher) has produced the sentence for which I was looking, in which the British reply contained the words
which might be passed upon them".

If the House will address itself to this point, it will see that this was done under the jurisdiction of the Ruler of Bahrain and it was not a British responsibility.
The removal of the prisoners was challenged by an application for a writ of habeas corpus by Abdul Rahman Al Bakir in March, 1959. He applied to the Supreme Court of St. Helena for a writ of habeas corpus on the ground, which hon. Members have just been discussing, that the extension of the Act and the Orders based upon it were not valid. The application was dismissed in the Supreme Court of St. Helena, and the same prisoner then applied to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. Therefore, the question of the legality of the detention of the three prisoners in St. Helena was taken before the highest court in the land. The Privy Council advised Her Majesty that the appeal failed and should be dismissed. Whatever may be said by hon. Members about the way in which this was handled, about the dates, about the posting of the notices or about the messages which were exchanged, the Privy Council has held that the detention of these three prisoners in St. Helena is legal.

Mr. Paget: I am sorry to interrupt again. It has not held that. What it has held is that the ground upon which they relied, that is to say, that the Foreign Jurisdiction Acts could not apply to Bahrain, was a bad ground, and the Judicial Committee decided this because, in answer to a request from the Judicial Committee to the Foreign Secretary, the Foreign Secretary said that Her Majesty's Government had jurisdiction in Bahrain. It was only upon the basis of our having jurisdiction in Bahrain that the Act applied. Now, if they have jurisdiction in Bahrain, we have the right not to send them back; these prisoners are our prisoners. If they have not got it, the Act does not apply.
The second point, which the Judicial Committee has not decided and which is wailing to be decided—it should be raised—is whether the warrant which took them to St. Helena, since it was issued before the Colonial Prisoners Removal Act applied to Bahrain, had been applied by publication in Bahrain. That point has still to be decided. It was not before the Privy Council because it could not be raised then.

Mr. Heath: On the last point, I think that the hon. and learned Member will find that discussed at the end of page 11 and on page 12 of the judgment of the Privy Council. It was taken before the Judicial Committee.

Mr. Paget: With respect, it was not taken before the Judicial Committee. The Judicial Committee says that the point was not taken in St. Helena and it had not before it the facts to deal with it here. "Therefore," said the Judicial Committee, "we cannot deal with it".

Mr. Heath: It is a complicated legal matter, and I will certainly consider that point which the hon. and learned Member raises. As regards legislative jurisdiction over Bahrain, the then Foreign Secretary replied—this is quoted in the Privy Council's judgment—that it is a specific and limited jurisdiction, whereas the jurisdiction in the courts dealing with citizens of Bahrain is the jurisdiction of the Ruler. About that I think there is no question.
After the decision of the Privy Council, the matter was raised in the House and my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who was then Foreign Secretary, was asked Questions about it on 29th June this year. In his reply he said:
The legality of the removal of these prisoners to St. Helena and their detention there has been upheld by a judgment of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. Now that this point has been established I am suggesting to all concerned that they should look again at this case."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 29th June, 1960; Vol. 625, c. 1373.]
Since then, we have asked, and my noble Friend has followed the then Foreign Secretary in asking, that this matter should be reviewed.
I deny any suggestion that Her Majesty's Government have been evasive What we have been doing since 29th June this year has been to review this matter and to see whether we could find an acceptable solution.

Mr. Stonehouse: rose—

Mr. Heath: The point I wish to mention now is that when the prisoners were moved under the Orders I have quoted, that was done in agreement with the Ruler. This is on page 6 of the judgment:
Whereas sentence of imprisonment for 14 years has been passed on the following

persons … We, the Ruler, of Bahrain testify by this document that we have agreed with the Governor of St. Helena upon the removal of the said persons from Bahrain to St. Helena for the said period or until we agree to their return to Bahrain.
That was the arrangement under which the prisoners were moved.

Mr. Warbey: What is the date of that?

Mr. Heath: The 26th December, 1956. I quote that because it has been suggested in the House that we could, immediately or at some time in the past, have released these prisoners of our own volition. The House has heard the terms of that agreement: the Ruler was agreeing with the Governor of St. Helena upon the removal of the "said persons" sentenced to fourteen years' imprisonment
for the said period or until we agree to their return to Bahrain.
That would preclude such action by ourselves.

Mr. Denis Healey: I think the right hon. Gentleman will agree that the statement he has read is a statement by the Ruler of Bahrain. It does not in any way commit us. It is a unilateral statement of what the Ruler himself intends to do. Can the Minister say in what way this unilateral statement by the Ruler is binding upon the British Government in whose jurisdiction, as the Lord Privy Seal has now admitted, and in whose jurisdiction alone, these prisoners are?

Mr. Heath: Discussions took place with the Ruler and the Political Resident there about the movement of these men. This was confirmed in the letter from the Ruler, and Her Majesty's Government have accepted that as binding. The Government do not accept an agreement of that kind and then turn it down.

Mr. Healey: It is not an agreement.

Mr. Paget: All that the agreement is is that the Sheik says that we must not send them back there unless he agrees. There is nothing in the agreement to say that we have to send them back if he asks for them.

Mr. Heath: I will read it again:
… upon the removal of the said persons from Bahrain to St. Helena for the said period"—


that is, for fourteen years—
or until we agree to their return to Bahrain".

Mr. Healey: Who are the signatories?

Mr. Heath: I have stated that it is a letter from the Ruler.

Hon. Members: Who are "we"?

Mr. Healey: "We" refers to the signatories?

Mr. Heath: The case that I am trying to make is that this does not permit us to release these prisoners, because the letter from the Ruler says that they are sent to St. Helena for the period of their sentence, which is fourteen years,
or until we agree to their return to Bahrain".

Mr. Healey: This is part of the nub of the matter. The Lord Privy Seal has made it clear that this document is a letter by the Ruler of Bahrain and that the word "we" used in it refers to the Ruler. This document does not commit Her Majesty's Government in any way. If the Government are committed, the Lord Privy Seal must be able to produce to this House an agreement by Her Majesty's Government with the Ruler or other persons governing the matter. The right hon. Gentleman has admitted that these men are now entirely in Her Majesty's Government's jurisdiction. While the Ruler's statement does not compel the Government to release these men, equally it does nothing to compel them to keep them or to return them.

Sir Harmar Nicholls: Is the hon. Gentleman right in suggesting that the "we" refers to the Ruler of Bahrain? I understood my right hon. Friend to be saying that conversations had taken place between both sides. It was the Ruler who put into writing the agreement which was entered into. Is my right hon. Friend saying that the "we" in the document refers to the Ruler of Bahrain or to the people conducting the discussion having arrived at an agreement?

Mr. Heath: We believe that it is an agreement. We believe that we have an obligation under this agreement and that we cannot turn it down.

Mr. Healey: Is there a signature by a member of the British Government?

Mr. Heath: There is no signature from a member of the British Government. It was sent by the Ruler after conversations, and for four years Her Majesty's Government have accepted that as being the terms under which these prisoners are held in custody in St. Helena. Her Majesty's Government feel that that is an obligation on them.

Mr. Fletcher: rose—

Mr. Heath: I am sorry; I cannot give way again. I have given way on an innumerable number of times, and I should like to continue.
Her Majesty's Government accept this as an obligation, and they are not going back on it with the Ruler of Bahrain. The obligation is for the prisoners to be detained in custody for the said period or until the Ruler agrees to their return—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—until we agree to their return.

Sir G. Nicholson: This is important. No doubt it is my stupidity, but how could an appeal to the Privy Council lie? If they won that appeal, would we still be bound by the agreement?

Mr. Heath: That is a further complication on this matter. [HON. MEMBERS: "Answer."] I should not like to answer a hypothetical legal question of that kind.
I wish to continue with the steps taken by my right hon. and learned Friend the present Chancellor of the Exchequer and by my noble Friend. Many views were expressed in the House, as has been said by the hon. and learned Member for Northampton, that this country, this Government and this House did not wish to be associated with prisoners who were detained in these circumstances. The jurisdiction of the sentence was under the Ruler of Bahrain, but the House did not, on the whole, wish to be associated with their detention in St. Helena. That was how we understood the feeling of the House. My noble Friend then urged on the Ruler very strongly that he should show clemency in these cases. He urged him that he should commute the sentences, and he urged that if they were commuted they should be to sentences of exile. That was the course very strongly suggested to the Ruler by my noble Friend and the Members of the Government.
However, the Ruler, after consideration during these months, decided that he was unable to accept that course and requested, as under the terms of his agreement with Her Majesty's Government he was entitled to do, that the prisoners be returned to his custody in Bahrain. We had explained to him that there was great feeling in the House that they should not be detained in St. Helena. As we understood it, that was the view of the House expressed over the past few months. In those circumstances, the Ruler, who said that he did not feel himself able to commute the sentences, asked that they should be returned to his custody in Bahrain. It is not for me to explain why the Ruler felt unable to accede to the request—[HON. MEMBERS: "It is."]—of my noble Friend that he should show clemency. He still has two prisoners in custody in Bahrain, but he has given his decision and has asked that they should be returned.
It has been said that they are being returned for extra punishment or for political reasons. There is absolutely no truth of any kind in that. They are being returned because we have expressed to the Ruler what we understood to be the feeling of the House, namely, that under this Act they should not be detained any longer in St. Helena, and because the Ruler feels unable to accede to the request for clemency to be shown to these three prisoners. In those circumstances, he has asked for the only other alternative, which is that they should be returned to Bahrain.
I must also refute the point made by the hon. and learned Gentleman that this is being done to avoid a further service of a writ of habeas corpus. There is no truth in that either. What we have been trying to do was to meet the wishes of the House as we understood them, first that their detention in St. Helena under the two Orders should not be continued, and secondly, that clemency should be granted. As, however, clemency cannot be granted, the Ruler has asked that they should be returned to Bahrain, because that is the only remaining alternative if they do not stay in St. Helena and if they are not released.

Mr. Stonehouse: I wonder whether the right hon. Gentleman—

Mr. Heath: I have given way inumerable times.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Order. The hon. Member cannot rise to speak while the right hon. Gentleman already has the Floor of the House.

Mr. Heath: I should like, in conclusion, to address the House to the points which are at issue. First, these men were sentenced under Bahrain jurisdiction. That is not the responsibility of Her Majesty's Government. Secondly, the legality of the detention in St. Helena has been supported by the Privy Council. Thirdly, we are entitled to move the prisoners back to Bahrain under the Order which is in existence. It will be seen that the last few words of the Order state, "and for their return". Therefore, it is in order under the Order to move them back. Fourthly, the terms of the letter from the Ruler do not permit us to release these men without the Ruler's agreement.
The hon. and learned Gentleman also raised the question of political asylum. As I said this afternoon, there has been no request so far to Her Majesty's Government for political asylum. The hon. and learned Gentleman has this evening produced a document. One would have to make sure that these prisoners are making this request and that they know the nature of the request which they are making. The terms under which the prisoners were moved under the Order and the terms of the letter in which the Ruler expressed his views, which we accepted, do not permit us to grant political asylum in those circumstances.

Mr. John Morris: Why not?

Mr. Heath: I have already explained. If we follow to its logical conclusion the argument of the hon. and learned Member for Northampton that he objects to Her Majesty's Government or this country being associated in any way with the situation, the only logical conclusion is that the prisoners should go back to Bahrain. Questions have been asked about the nature of their imprisonment and I gave an Answer yesterday giving the views of the Judge of the Chief Court about existing conditions of imprisonment in Jidda. That is all the information I can give the House about the terms of the imprisonment.
At the end of his speech, the hon. and learned Gentleman asked four questions. The first was whether we would give an undertaking not to return these prisoners until after the Christmas Recess, and it was coupled with the last point about the information for which the representatives of these prisoners in London had asked in order to make a further legal claim if they wished to do so. I have looked into the reason for the delay. As the matter is extremely complicated and as legal advice had to be taken by the Government before this information was supplied, it has taken some time. We will, however, supply it at the earliest opportunity.
What I will do is to undertake to the House to look into the nature of the statement that these prisoners wish to bring a further legal action in the matter. I said in the House yesterday that we were considering the arrangements to move these prisoners from St. Helena to Bahrain. As it will in any event take time to arrange this, I am prepared to see that if the request from their lgal advisers is justified, there should be delay until it can be satisfied one way or the other. I could not give an undertaking until I have looked into the nature of the action that the prisoners wished to bring, and so on, about this matter. As for a statement after the Recess or a statement about the legal niceties of the situation, I will, of course, consider whether there is anything further that can be said in a statement.

8.33 p.m.

Mr. Eric Fletcher: I am sure that everybody in the House will have been completely astonished at the totally unsatisfactory nature of the right hon. Gentleman's reply. The facts of the case become more and more curious as they are unravelled before this House.
I wish to deal immediately with the point made by the Lord Privy Seal at the end of his speech. For the purpose of this debate, I am not concerned to inquire further whether the original conviction in Bahrain was valid. That is not the question. It is, however, important to point out, as the Lord Privy Seal omitted to do, that the judicial proceedings, if they can be honoured with that description, in Bahrain were not proceedings before a British court of

justice. They were not proceedings in which the ordinary arrangements of British law and justice were observed. They were proceedings before a local Ruler who is a despot in his own country and who has no knowledge or experience of the elementary principles of British justice. The right hon. Gentleman should also know that the judges in the Bahrain Court—the special court set up by the Ruler to try these men—were his own relatives.

Mr. Anthony Kershaw: Is the hon. Gentleman also aware that although these judges were relatives of the Ruler—Bahrain is a very small State where people have very large numbers of sons and relatives—they were also regular judges of the Court of Bahrain?

Mr. Fletcher: That may be so, but nobody could conceive in a court in this country the relatives of a Ruler acting as judges where the charge was attempted assassination of the Ruler, even if they were judges who normally sat. The demands of elementary justice would ensure completely impartial judges being appointed.
The right hon. Gentleman was right in saying that the Privy Council has given a judgment, and that it asserted, on purely legal grounds, that the Colonial Office had jurisdiction to make an agreement with the Governor of St. Helena for the transfer of these prisoners there. But nothing that the Privy Council has said about the validity of the transfer can exonerate either the Ruler of Bahrain or Her Majesty's Government from the extraordinary circumstances in which the Government agreed, before the trial, before conviction and before sentencing, to the removal of these prisoners, whom the Ruler knew were to be sentenced, to St. Helena.
It is true that at that stage the prisoners were not willing to go to St. Helena, but they are there now. The reason why the Government are indicted tonight is that it is quite obvious that these prisoners do not wish to return to Bahrain and are afraid that if they are returned they will be subjected to injustice, cruelty, further punishment and perhaps to all kinds of barbarity.

Mr. Heath: What evidence has the hon. Gentleman for the prisoners' views on that?

Mr. Fletcher: I was told by their lawyers in London this evening. That is enough evidence. They are completely distrustful of being sent back. They know that they were tried for a political offence, and that the only reason that the Ruler did not want to keep them in Bahrain four years ago was because at that time he was afraid of political disturbances. Now circumstances have changed and he wants to get them back into his own custody, so that in accordance with his own system of jurisprudence—which according to our notions is barbaric—he can do what he likes with them.
Rightly or wrongly their fear is that they would be in danger of life, of their liberty, of their limbs and of their health if they went back.

Mr. Heath: I must make it plain that we raised this matter with the Ruler ourselves after the undertaking given by my right hon. and learned Friend, the present Chancellor of the Exchequer, to the House at the end of June. It has not been raised by the Ruler. We have expressed to the Ruler the doubts in this House about the continued detention of these men in St. Helena. Therefore, I am afraid—[interruption.]

Mr. Fletcher: I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman is anxious to observe the wishes of the House in this matter. He is correct in saying that there was a time when great concern was expressed by the prisoners themselves and by this House about their transfer to St. Helena. There was a time, perhaps as late as July, when protests were being made about their transfer. It is true also that the Privy Council has justified the transfer.
If the right hon. Gentleman—and I want to do him justice—is anxious, as he should be, to observe the principles of elementary freedom and observe the wishes of the House, he should recognise that for equally valid reasons these three prisoners are terrified of the prospect of being returned to Bahrain.
The reason is that, although as the Lord Privy Seal has said and as the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council has acknowledged, Her Majesty's Government have legislative jurisdiction in Bahrain, and although it has been there

laid down that we are entitled to make this Order in Council for their transfer—and I disregard the circumstances in which it was made—the distinction is that Her Majesty's Government have no judicial jurisdiction in Bahrain. They have legislative authority to make that arrangement, but if these three unfortunate prisoners are returned to Bahrain they will be entirely outside the protection or the competence of any British courts in Bahrain. They will be subject only to the personal rule, which I think is the despotic rule, of the Ruler.
The distinction today between leaving the prisoners in St. Helena and transferring them to Bahrain is that as long as they are in St. Helena which is a British possession, they are under the jurisdiction and competence of British courts and they are entitled to judicial protection and what we recognise as the fundamental basis of British justice. If they go back to Bahrain, no British court will have any power to protect them. That is why, for good or bad reasons, they are now terrified about going back to Bahrain.
I now want to deal with the argument of the Lord Privy Seal. Contrary to what the right hon. Gentleman has just said. I assert, first, that Her Majesty's Government have no right to transfer these prisoners back to Bahrain. Secondly, even if I am wrong in that and Her Majesty's Government have a right to transfer them back, they certainly have no duty to do so. Thirdly, assuming, as I think the House will agree, that Her Majesty's Government have an option and a discretion in the matter, it would be contrary to all equitable principles, to all principles of decency, to all decent regard to human rights—

Mr. Callaghan: And our tradition.

Mr. Fletcher: It would be contrary to all these things to entertain any question of transferring these men.
Since this matter turns on the terms of the agreement to which the Lord Privy Seal draws attention, I ask him, with great respect, to reconsider it because I am sure that he has misconceived it. This argument is a little difficult to make, but I want to make it as clear as I can. Yesterday, in answer to a Question by my hon. Friend the


Member for Wednesbury (Mr. Stone-house), the Lord Privy Seal said that these men
… were sentenced under the Ruler's jurisdiction and detained under an agreement by which, at the Ruler's request, they could be returned to Bahrain. He has now made that request."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 19th December, 1960; Vol. 632, c. 877.]
The Lord Privy Seal must make up his mind about one of two things. Is he saying that there is an obligation on Her Majesty's Government to return them to Bahrain, or is he merely saying that there is a power to return them to Bahrain?
I want to demolish once and for all the argument that there is any obligation to return them to Bahrain. This is the vital point of the debate. The agreement to which the Lord Privy Seal refers is made in the Arabic language. The document from which he quoted was written in Arabic. All we have at the moment is a translation. Whether or not it is a correct translation is a matter about which people would be entitled to reserve their views. It is addressed by the Ruler of Bahrain to the Political Resident in Bahrain representing Her Majesty. It says:
We, … the Ruler of Bahrain testify by this document"—
I emphasise the "we" because it occurs so often that the "we" must have the same meaning throughout.

Mr. Paget: The royal "we".

Mr. Fletcher: The document reads:
We, … the Ruler of Bahrain testify by this document that we have agreed with the Governor of St. Helena upon the removal of the said persons from Bahrain to St. Helena for the said period or until we agree to their return to Bahrain.
That must mean royal "we", but I will consider the alternative argument in a moment. Assuming it is royal "we", this document means that these prisoners must be detained in St. Helena either for the period of fourteen years or until the Ruler permits them to return to Bahrain. I do not for a moment doubt that the Ruler is very anxious to have them back in Bahrain; that is why they are anxious not to go back. But the document does not say that because—

Mr. Heath: The Ruler is not anxious to have them back in Bahrain. [HON. MEMBERS: "Then why send them

back?] We explained to the Ruler that the general feeling in the House was that they ought not to be detained in the Island of St. Helena. Because of the request made in the Question to my right hon. and learned Friend the present Chancellor of the Exchequer, we impressed on the Ruler the doubts which had been expressed, and it was in those circumstances that, as he did not feel able to commute their sentences, he said that he would adopt the alternative of asking for their return to Bahrain.

Mr. Fletcher: I am anxious to got this right. I think that there is an element of truth in what the Lord Privy Seal said, but only an element. It is true that because of events which occurred in the past, because of objections which had previously been made to transferring these people to St. Helena, and perhaps because of the application of habeus corpus that went to the Privy Council six months ago, the Government thought this House was against these people being in St. Helena, and it may well be that some approach was made to the Ruler, but the Lord Privy Seal cannot dispute what he said in the House yesterday. Speaking of the request for them to be returned to Bahrain, he said:
He"—
that is the Ruler—
has now made that request".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 19th December, 1960, Vol. 632, c. 877.]
Therefore, whether the request was inspired by the Government or not, the position today is that the Ruler has made a request, and the unfortunate prisoners do not want to return. However, it must be observed that they are prisoners for whom we in this country have a traditional duty to have regard, because it has always been our law that whenever anybody comes within British jurisdiction he has the full rights of personal justice open to all British subjects. That is a cherished tradition. The Ruler wants them back. They do not want to go back. The Minister must face the nub of the question, which is whether there is any need to send them back.

Mr. John Hobson: rose—

Mr. Fletcher: I will give way in a moment. The only basis on which it could be asserted that there was a requirement to send them back is this


document written in Arabic signed by the Ruler where he says in effect: "Keep them in St. Helena until I agree to their return." I accept that. I also accept that he would now agree to their return, but that does not oblige us to send them back. The alternative is to keep them in St. Helena. Although I do not suppose that they particularly like being there, they prefer being there under British protection and jurisdiction to being in the hands of a barbarian Ruler. When I say "barbarians", I mean uncivilised according to the standards of British justice.

Mr. Hobson: Will the hon. Gentleman make clear whether he is saying that there is no obligation to return them now that the Ruler has agreed that they should be returned because the agreement is not binding, or because it does not mean that they have to be returned in the circumstances which the agreement sets out?

Mr. Fletcher: I think that this document written in Arabic—which, after all, is unilateral and was not acknowledged or confirmed in any way by the Government—places upon the British Government an obligation to keep them in St. Helena, or, if the Ruler agrees, to return them to Bahrain.
I agree with the Lord Privy Seal that if one depends merely upon the agreement he might be able to argue that they could not be set free and sent to Canada, say, but that is not the case under the agreement. They are entitled, if they so desire, to remain in St. Helena, and the House is entitled to insist that Her Majesty's Government keep them there, under the agreement.
So much for the agreement. All I am concerned to say about the agreement is that it does not place any obligation on Her Majesty's Government to send them to Bahrain, but the agreement is not the final word. I dispute first whether there is an agreement, secondly, whether that agreement has any validity, thirdly, whether Her Majesty's Government are entitled to make such an agreement in defiance of the principles of British law.
For example, if these people were to apply for a writ of habeas corpus, perhaps on totally different grounds from those already used to raise the matter,

if, for example, they were to challenge the validity of the agreement, which they have not yet done, then they have a historic right to have that case heard both in the Supreme Court of St. Helena and in the Privy Council. Until they have exhausted all their legal remedies, Her Majesty's Government have no right whatever to remove them from St. Helena. It would be in defiance of the great traditions of British justice and in defiance of the wishes of the House and thoroughly immoral and indefensible for Her Majesty's Government to transfer these people out of the protection of the British courts in St. Helena until they had exhausted all their rights to remain there and tested to the Privy Council every argument which they wished to make on the validity of the agreement and the whole situation.
The Lord Privy Seal has recognised that the whole case bristles with many complications and I am sure that, having heard what has been said by hon. Members, he will wish to pay attention to their wishes and take the course, which does not involve any great hardship, of allowing these men to remain where they are at least until they have had the full resources of the exercise of all their legal rights.

8.52 p.m.

Sir Charles Mott-Radclyffe: I have considerable sympathy with you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, in your difficult decision of what to allow to be in order in this rather technical debate. However, I suppose that one is safe if one confines one's remarks to issues which the Chair has already allowed to be mentioned.
There is one comment which I must immediately make about the speech of the hon. Member for Islington, East (Mr. Fletcher) and the speech of the hon. Member for Wednesbury (Mr. Stone-house). If ever there was an example of the birds coming home to roost, this is it. If hon. Members opposite had not been so vocal in the past about the position of these three Bahrainis at St. Helena, the question of their return to Bahrain might never have arisen and they might still be basking undisturbed in the sunshine in the prison of St. Helena.
None the less, according to the true principles of democracy and so on, hon. Members opposite for some time past


have been conducting a kind of sporadic campaign on this question and they probably blew up the whole matter without knowing the whole background of the story. As I said, this is an example of the birds coming home to roost.
The hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) led the House to believe that these three Bahrainis had committed no crime. All they wanted, he said, was the wholly commendable desire to get on to the local council and improve the drains. My right hon. Friend the Lord Privy Seal put the matter into its correct perspective. These Bahrainis were convicted of various subversive activities, in which a number of buildings were burned down, together with a plot to assassinate the Ruler and various members of his family and the Political Adviser.
The point I want to make to the House is this. There has been much talk from the other side about the conditions in Bahraini prisons and Bahraini courts and about the code which they follow and so on. The House must be realistic about this. It is not the slightest use trying to pretend that the standards of justice and the code of judicial proceedings in the Middle East are comparable to ours. They are quite different. [HON. MEMBERS: "Are we not supposed to change them?"] To compare the courts in Bahrain with the courts in this country is not comparing like with like. They are quite different. All I would say is that by Middle East standards, the code of justice and the method of administration of justice in Bahrain is very high indeed.

Mr. Stonehouse: rose—

Sir C. Mott-Radclyffe: I am not going to give way. The anxiety in this respect voiced by hon. Gentlemen opposite about the code of justice and condition of prisons in Bahrain might carry a little more weight if they expressed similar anxieties about similar sentences passed for similar acts of violence by other kinds of people in other countries.

Hon. Members: We do.

Mr. Paget: When the hon. Gentleman says that the standard of justice is high for the Middle East in a case in which the Ruler and the Convenor of the Court are on record as having stated that the

sentence is decided five days before the court is convened, will he tell us what happens in those courts in the Middle Fast which are less judicial?

Sir C. Mott-Radclyffe: I doubt whether, in fact, he said anything of the kind. Perhaps, in turn, I may ask the hon. and learned Gentleman this question. If he had to be adjudged in any court in any country in the Middle East, in what country would he prefer to be adjudged, rather than Bahrain? Would he prefer to be adjudged in a court in the Trucial Coast, in Egypt, or in Iraq?

Mr. Paget: In Israel.

Mr. Marcus Lipton: Or Windsor County Court?

Mr. Paget: I have been asked and the answer has been given.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Major Sir William Anstruther-Gray): Order. I think the House will be led away from the strict rules of Order if we pursue that question any further.

Sir C. Mott-Radclyffe: The request for the removal of these Bahrainis to St. Helena was not made by Her Majesty's Government at all but by the Ruler of Bahrain, and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice (Mr. Wall) said, there was quite a longstanding custom, going back before the first war, a custom by which certain Bahraini prisoners used to be sent not to St. Helena but to the Andaman Islands.

Mr. Callaghan: When?

Sir C. Mott-Radclyffe: I think it was before 1914. It was a very old custom, but I cannot recollect—[Interruption.] What was equally clear was that the acceptance of these Bahrainis for removal to the Island of St. Helena was conditional upon their return to the Ruler of Bahrain, if he so desired it. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Yes, that was a condition. I have yet to learn how many people signed the letter which the hon. and learned Gentleman read out, but what is clear is that once we had accepted the Bahraini prisoners for removal to St. Helena, we accepted the condition which the Ruler made, which was that if he so demanded, either upon a review of the sentences or upon any other grounds, they should be returned to Bahrain.

Mr. Fletcher: rose—

Sir C. Mott-Radclyffe: I cannot give way. I want to make a final point, because other hon. Members want to speak.
I wish to give one word of warning to hon. Members opposite. I think they are trying to make out a case by which, no doubt in logic and, maybe, by international law, Her Majesty's Government ought not any longer and, indeed, ought never to have had any custody of these Bahrainis. Never at any time have the British Government had jurisdiction over the Bahrainis. Assuming for the moment that the argument of hon. Members opposite is valid—although it was not held to be valid by the Privy Council—it leads to the conclusion that for all practical purposes, the British Government have abducted these three Bahrainis. If that is so, the only thing that we can do is to return them to the Ruler of Bahrain.

9.0 p.m.

Mr. Ede: I shall speak for only two or three minutes. I read the letter which has been the subject of recent controversy in this matter entirely differently from the way in which the hon. Member for Windsor (Sir C. Mott-Radclyffe) does. It seems to me that when that letter was written the Sheik of Bahrain may have thought that we would get tired of keeping these people and would say to him. "Why should we keep your prisoners? Will you not take them back?" [HON. MEMBERS: "That is what we have done."] The Sheik may have thought that he would reserve the right to agree to the transaction. He thought that the request would be made the other way round, and might well have thought, "If these terrible fellows get back here, goodness only knows whom they will throw stones at next time."

Mr. Callaghan: It might be the hon. Member for Windsor (Sir C. Mott-Radclyffe).

Mr. Ede: I do not like to see stones thrown at anybody. I do not believe that this has worked out in the way the Sheik thought it would. These people are now in our custody, and from what I have heard tonight, even from the hon. Member for Windsor, I would not return

these men to the custody of the Sheik of Bahrain under any circumstances whatever.

9.2 p.m.

Mr. Anthony Kershaw: I cannot feel that the interpretation of the agreement by the right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) was the right one. I have in my hand a report of the appeal before the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. What happened was that a letter was handed by the Sheik of Bahrain to the British Political Resident in Bahrain, who represents Her Majesty's Government. Translated from the Arabic that letter reads as follows:
We … have agreed with the Governor of St. Helena upon the removal of the said persons from Bahrain to St. Helena for the said period"—
namely, the period of their sentence—
or until we agree to their return to Bahrain.
The hon. Member for Islington, East (Mr. Fletcher) said that the British Government have no part in this agreement, because it was made between St. Helena and Bahrain. That cannot be the case. In the first place, this letter was handed directly to the Political Resident in Bahrain by the Ruler on 26th December, 1956—and the Political Resident is there on behalf of the Queen. If he did not wish to accept that letter and did not wish, by his action and conduct, to indicate that an agreement existed between Her Majesty's Government and the Ruler, he should have handed it back and said, "No, we do not agree."
Apart from that, it is not true that the British Government have no part in this agreement, because it is made between the Governor of St. Helena and the Ruler of Bahrain, and the Governor, as Governor of a Colony, represents Her Majesty there and is directly subject to her orders. On those two grounds it is clear that Her Majesty's Government are bound by that agreement, unless they wish to tear up their diplomatic obligations under it. They are both morally and legally bound by that agreement, and they cannot be heard to say, "It is nothing to do with us. We never agreed to it."

Mr. G. R. Mitchison: Will the hon. Gentleman allow me to ask him a question? I have not yet heard any


evidence of an agreement. If there was, in fact, an agreement between the Governments or the Governors, how does that entitle the Governor of St. Helena to send back to Bahrain individuals whose rights cannot be determined by a treaty? Surely the hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that a treaty or agreement between States cannot affect the rights of individuals. What is an extradition treaty for? What are statutes for, like the Colonial Prisoners Removal Act which was referred to earlier in the debate?

Mr. Kershaw: The answer to the hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) is that Orders in Council have been made under the Colonial Prisoners Removal Act and all the appropriate legal steps have been taken to make it possible to remove these prisoners from Bahrain to St. Helena under the Act of 1869.

Mr. Mitchison: How can they be made under the Colonial Prisoners Removal Act if Bahrain is not a Colony?

Mr. Kershaw: That is a separate point. I am coming to whether or not this Act was properly applied. The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council thought that it was properly applied to Bahrain in this case.
The hon and learned Gentleman said that we cannot remove these men in St Helena and their rights by an agreement between the Ruler of Bahrain and the Governor of St. Helena. But we have not done so. They have applied for a writ of habeas corpus to the Supreme Court of St. Helena and to the Privy Council. It is suggested by the hon. Member for Wedneslbury (Mr. Stone-house) that they are going to apply again on fresh evidence, and no one can stop them from doing that.

Mr. S. Silverman: The hon. Gentleman will see the difference between the determination of a point of law by the Privy Council and the acceptance by the Privy Council of a piece of evidence offered by the Foreign Secretary. It is common ground that all this business would be illegal if the Colonial Prisoners Removal Act did not apply. It cannot apply unless this is a Colony. The Privy Council did not determine whether or not it is a Colony. The Foreign Secretary

answered a Question by the Privy Council which was:
Did Her Majesty's Government on December 19th, 1956, hold, exercise and enjoy legislative jurisdiction in Bahrain over persons being subjects of the Ruler of Bahrain and/or Qatar?
This afternoon the Lord Privy Seal said we had limited jurisdiction, but when the Foreign Secretary replied to the Privy Council he said nothing about "limited". He answered that question plainly in the affirmative and the Privy Council accepted what he said.

Mr. Kershaw: The hon. Gentleman is surely not quite right about that. Of course, the Privy Council is bound to accept a letter from the Secretary of State saying that he has certain jurisdiction or the extent of his jurisdiction. The Council addressed two questions to the Secretary of State. First, it asked:
Did Her Majesty's Government on December 19th, 1956, hold, exercise and enjoy legislative jurisdiction in Bahrain over persons being subjects of the Ruler of Bahrain and/or Qatar?".
The second question was:
If so at what date did Her Majesty acquire such jurisdiction and what was its extent?
The Secretary of State replied on 8th April of this year in an extensive letter and I shall not waste the time of the House by quoting it. In it he said he had jurisdiction over certain classes of cases in Bahrain and Qatar. That was the Judicial Committee's reason for saying the Colonial Prisoners Removal Act, 1869, was properly applied to Bahrain. I think the hon. Gentleman will have to go to the merits of the case in order to overturn that letter of the Secretary of State. He will have to consider whether the Secretary of State was wrong in sending that letter.

Mr. Silverman: Indeed he was.

Mr. Kershaw: If he was wrong, it was for various reasons which the hon. Member may or may not be able to introduce into this debate, but to say that legally the Secretary of State or the decision of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council is not right is, I think, at this date hardly possible.

Mr. Paget: The position is that what the Foreign Secretary was saying was that we had jurisdiction in this case and


it was not in this case that it was irrelevant. If we have jurisdiction in this case we have jurisdiction to remit the sentence. Apparently, according to the Lord Privy Seal, we want to remit the sentence. We can do it. If we do not have that jurisdiction, the Privy Council was misled and these men were cheated.

Mr. Kershaw: Of course the Privy Council was in order in giving its judgment. I feel bound to quote from the judgment in which it said at the rehearing after hearing the Secretary of State's answers:
On 19th December, 1956, Her Majesty held, exercised and enjoyed legislative jurisdiction in Bahrain over subjects of the Ruler of Bahrain and subjects of the Ruler of Qatar to the extent indicated hereafter.

Mr. S. Silverman: Then we still have it.

Mr. Kershaw: We still have it for the purposes of the Act of 1869. Then there is the passage from the judgment of the Judicial Committee, on page 134 of the Weekly Law Reports, 1st July. 1960. which reads:
But their Lordships are satisfied that … the appellant's case was properly brought before the special court set up by the Ruler.
The second point made by the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) was that the proceedings before this court were invalid because it was staffed by relatives of the Ruler. As I said in an interjection, they were the regular judges of the territory, albeit that they were relatives of the Ruler. I think the hon. and learned Member will know that in a very small country such as that where the educated class is very small it is not unusual for that to happen and for there to be very few judges who are not related in some way or other to the sheik. That point was ventured upon in the course of the trial before the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council but it was abandoned, apparently because there was no ground on which to push it. It was said by the Judicial Committee in reply to the argument that the appellant was not a prisoner under sentence within the meaning of the Act of 1869:
it was (their Lordships understood) at one stage suggested that the circumstances attending trial before the special court were such as to preclude its recognition as a valid judicial proceeding. This objection was not

pressed, and their Lordships are satisfied that it is without substance.
It was further said that this particular order cannot apply to these prisoners on the grounds, among others, that the arrangements for their reception at St. Helena were made before the sentences were passed. That was surely only an administrative convenience. If it was desired, presumably for reasons of security, to remove them as soon as they were sentenced, I should have thought it was essential and only prudent to inquire if they could proceed there if it was desired to move them there. I do not think any deduction can be drawn which invalidates the proceedings or shows fault on the part of those concerned.
Thirdly, it was said by the hon. Member for Wednesbury that this order was in some way invalid because the agreement of the Governor of St. Helena referred to five prisoners whereas, in fact, only three were handed over. That point was specifically considered by the Judicial Committee in its judgment and it decided that there was nothing in it. It said:
Their Lordships would add that, inasmuch as Her Majesty's jurisdiction to make the Extension Order and the Sanction Order did not depend on the existence at the time of making them of any particular prisoners under sentence the fact that the addresses were presented and the Orders were made before the date of the conviction of the appellant and the other four men, though made a matter of comment on the appellant's side, is immaterial
It is said that fresh evidence will be produced to show that these men were improperly put upon the naval ship at Bahrain. I understood this was fresh evidence that might be adduced. This was mentioned by the hon. Member for Wednesbury, whom I am glad to see is in his place again.
That point was also considered by the Privy Council. Although fresh evidence, if it is really fresh evidence, would be another matter altogether, the point was raised in argument that there was at least some doubt as to whether or not the order had been properly displayed on that particular day before the men were put on to the British ship. The point was made and this is what was said in the judgment:
A further argument was raised before their Lordships to the effect that as the serving


of the warrant and the coming into force of the Sanction Order by publication in Bahrain took place on the same day (viz. 28th December, 1956) the latter might have preceded the former event, so that it was not proved that, at the moment of time on 28th December, on which the warrant was issued by service on the captain, the Ruler had power to serve it under section 5 of the Act of 1869. This point (as distinct from the point that a warrant was drawn up before 28th December does not appear to have been raised below, and inasmuch as it could only be resolved by evidence as to the precise moments of time at which the publication of the order and the service of the warrant respectively took place, their Lordships do not think the appellant should be allowed to raise it now.
If I may concede a point, the hon. Gentleman is strictly correct in saying that the Judicial Committee did not decide whether the publication had been properly made. Is it unreasonable to suppose that if the evidence had been available for the court that the publication had been wrong, it would have been urged? It was not taken either in the first court or before the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council and one wonders why, if the evidence was available, it was not brought out then.

Mr. Stonehouse: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for conceding the point that it was not dealt with at the Judicial Committee hearing. Is he aware that the Colonial Office legal advisers on 26th October undertook specifically to obtain the information to which I have referred in my speech and that that information was to be provided as a matter of urgency? Does it not prove the fact that both sides in this case are aware that information must be obtained and does it not prove that the Colonial Office itself was not fully aware of the facts, at least on 26th October? Is not this a further reason for delaying the return of these men to Bahrain so that the full circumstances can be revealed?

Mr. Kershaw: I am sure the hon. Gentleman has got ahead of the evidence there. To say that the Colonial Office—I would have thought very properly—promised to review any evidence that might be made available to it and try to find if there was any evidence, is not to say that the Colonial Office decided that there was evidence and that hitherto it was suppressing it, which is the implication of what the hon. Gentleman said. It is not right to say that the Judicial Committee did not deal with this matter.

It considered it, but it did not have to come to a conclusion about this as the point was not taken before. If there is fresh evidence, it would be proper for the matter to be reopened. But on the basis of the Colonial Office promise to reopen the matter if there is fresh evidence, the hon. Member should not say that therefore there must be fresh evidence.
The Motion uses the words
without due process of law".
If my arguments up to now have been valid, due processes of law have taken place and the agreement between the Governor of St. Helena and the Sheik of Bahrain is one in which the due process of law can act. I therefore suggest that that part of the Motion is wrong.
The Motion says, secondly, that these men are to be returned to Bahrain "for punishment". That implies that they are being returned to Bahrain for extra punishment. They are already under sentence and they are going back to serve the rest of their sentence. It is incorrect to put it in the way in which it is put in the Motion.
The Motion says, finally, that the men are going to another jurisdiction. All I have to say about that is that to some extent British jurisdiction does run in Bahrain. That was what founded the possibility of using the Act of 1869. Therefore, it is not entirely true to say that the men are going to another jurisdiction.
The Opposition are being unreasonable about this. They got very hot about these men being sent to St. Helena in the first place. Now they are equally hot about the men being sent away. It is very difficult to please the Opposition. I appreciate that it is the duty of the Opposition to oppose, but to push and pull in this way makes it very difficult for the Foreign Secretary. After all, what is my noble Friend to do? I suppose he has to keep them in St. Helena until they have an opportunity to apply for habeas corpus. I am sure that the House would not disagree with that. But in the long run, is he to tear up this perfectly valid agreement and dishonour our word with the Ruler of Bahrain? If that is the way our foreign policy would be conducted under the guidance of right hon. and hon. Gentlemen


opposite, the country can be very pleased that it is likely to be many years before they have the opportunity to do it.

9.22 p.m.

Mr. Woodrow Wyatt: It must be a long time since we listened to a more deplorable speech than that made from the Government Front Bench tonight. For a Minister of a great country like ours to tell us that the position is that he does not feel that he has jurisdiction over prisoners in his control but that the Ruler of Bahrain has jurisdiction over us and we simply obey his instructions, is about as far down the scale as we could possibly get. The right hon. Gentleman justified himself at the same time with the proposition that he has in fact got jurisdiction over Bahrain, because that is the Act he used.
I want to consider very briefly what the plight of these wretched men is likely to be if they are returned to Bahrain. This is very relevant to what may happen to them in the way of punishment, and so forth, if they do get back there. I do not want to dispute the legality of the proceedings which got the men to St. Helena. I will not even dispute the rather nasty legality of the Government's retrospective cover-up actions after that.
When I went to Bahrain I was given a booklet called "Welcome to Bahrain", published by the Government of Bahrain. On page 32 it says:
The form of Government can he described as a benevolent autocracy.
That is their own description of their own Government. In the case of these gentlemen one would have to leave out the word "benevolent".
I met them at Bahrain. When I went to see them I found them to be very respectable mild merchants who were kind enough to give me a television interview. The moment this began Sir Charles Belgrave, the then Minister, rang up and said that the Ruler did not like it and was going to put a stop to it. I was told that he was on his way in a car to do so. I said that it was too late and simply carried on.
The moment these men get back to Bahrain they will be at the mercy of the whims of a despot who does not propose to do anything on a legal basis. What can we do for them, or what can

we do about them? The Lord Privy Seal based his case on the proposition that he would like to be clement to them. He said that he has urged clemency on the Ruler, but he is helpless and can do nothing. I submit that this is totally untrue.
In that same visit to Bahrain I questioned Sir Bernard Burrows, the then Political Resident, about his powers. He said very clearly—I am putting this shortly in the restricted time available to me, although I could quote extensively—that he was in a position to give advice when he thought things were going very wrong and to do it on his own initiative.
What does that advice mean? It means that when we feel like it we depose the Ruler of Bahrain, as happened in 1923 when we deposed the present Ruler's grandfather. The Ruler of Bahrain depends entirely on our protection. He depends on British troops. He depends for his entire existence on us. All the Foreign Minister has to say is: "You will release these men forthwith or we will depose you. If you do not behave properly, we will depose you as we deposed your grandfather."
The terrifying thing about members of the party opposite nowadays is that they still have a lingering feeling about Imperialism—the Suez adventure and that kind of thing—but have lost the sort of nerve that used to carry that kind of activity through. They are now mesmerised about a little sheikh in a tiny island like Bahrain, although the Government have said that it is wrong for him to keep these men in prison, and have repeated it at that Box this afternoon. Where, without hesitation, in such circumstances the present Ruler's grandfather was deposed, the present Government dare not do anything to today's Ruler.
It will be a travesty of justice to permit this kind of thing to go through, and it will be a slight on the British nation, if we cannot say that at least we in this House of Commons have tried to save something for three wretched men—who could be saved at once tomorrow by one word from the Political Resident in Bahrain given on the instructions of Her Majesty's Government. The Ruler is in no state to oppose us. We can take away our troops, or depose him—


do whatever we like—but we are absolutely mesmerised because we have an oil refinery there and dare not lift a finger. There are many of these rulers in that part of the world, and if we are to obey the behest of the Ruler of Bahrain—as, indeed, the Lord Privy Seal has said this afternoon that we are obeying him—we are absolutely out for the future in the whole of the Middle East.

9.27 p.m.

Mr. Denis Healey: The case we have been discussing this afternoon is one of the greatest importance from the human, the legal and the political points of view. It is a very old tradition that this House should break off from dealing with matters of great national importance to concern itself from time to time with the fate of single individuals. It seems to me that this case is peculiarly appropriate for consideration by the House. It presents some legal aspects of extraordinary complexity, and some of the difficulties in which the Lord Privy Seal found himself in trying to answer questions on the legal aspect testified to that.
But we in this House are not concerned essentially with the legal problems. We are not concerned so much with law as with justice, and we are concerned with justice, not only as the House of Commons but as the representatives of the British people. I must say that the situation that has been uncovered in the course of this debate is one of the most deplorable and unsavoury entanglements in which any British Government have ever found themselves.
The Government have made great play during this discussion of the fact that the Privy Council in a recent judgment ruled that the Colonial Prisoners Removal Act rightly applied to the territory of Bahrain because the British Government had jurisdiction in Bahrain in this matter. I shall return to that point later. What the Privy Council did not reveal in its judgment—because it was not the Privy Council's business to do so—is that the methods by which the Bahraini and the British authorities contrived to act legally to this extent were tortuous in the extreme, and profoundly disturbing to any one who values the traditions of British justice.
It may be true, as the Privy Council found, that the trial at which these men

were sentenced to fourteen years' imprisonment was valid in Bahraini law, but, after all, Mr. Speaker, all that that judgment means is that what happened in Bahrain on that day was the way in which the Bahrainis do carry out their trials. It means no more than that. It has no relevance whatever to the question we have to decide in this House, which is the extent to which justice is being served by what is happening and what the Government propose shall happen in the near future.
The plain fact is that the trial in which these men were sentenced was conducted by a court which had been specially constituted the day before, which was composed entirely of the relatives of the Ruler, none of whom had any legal training, and the accused in court were not represented by counsel. That is the first basic fact from which all the story springs. We have heard also that the sentence which was to be inflicted on these men was decided and even announced before the trial had been held. We know that their deportation to St. Helena was ordered before they were convicted.
Her Majesty's Government have a direct responsibility in this particular matter because they published an Order the day before the trial ended announcing that they proposed to transfer three convicted persons in a British warship to St. Helena. There is no question of hypothetical decision there. This was an announcement that three convicted men were to be transferred.
Thirdly, there is the point to which my hon. Friend the Member for Wednesbury (Mr. Stonehouse) referred, that it seems highly probable that these men were physically put on board the British warship before the order sanctioning the action was posted in Bahrain. I must ask the Lord Privy Seal to answer the question which has been put to him. Why have the Government so far not carried out the promise made by the Colonial Office legal adviser to the solicitors of the accused men on 26th October this year to produce evidence which would enable the Privy Council to make a finding on this particular problem?
So far, I admit, we are dealing with past history. Since the problem to which the House is asked to address itself is


the problem of whether it is equitable—to use your own words, Mr. Speaker—that these men should be transferred from British jurisdiction to another jurisdiction, it is very closely relevant for the House, which concerns itself with equity and justice, to consider the evidence which would enable it to make up its mind about the sort of jurisdiction to which it is proposed these men should be transferred. I think that The Times in a leading article which has already been quoted spoke very moderately when it said:
Inevitably the picture has been given of an alliance between the Ruler of Bahrain and the British Government to contrive special machinery for removing trouble makers quickly from the scene. There is certainly something hugger-mugger about the business which cannot be reconciled with the principle of justice being seen to be done.
I pass over very rapidly the general political aspects of the case, but the House will, no doubt, wish to return to them at a later date. There is no question that the difficulty in which the Government find themselves now entangled arises from the very archaic treaty arrangements governing relations between Great Britain and the Gulf Sheikdoms. I believe that the key to the original decision of Her Majesty's Government to take these men on the island of St. Helena lies in the fact that the riots for which they were being tried were riots against the British Foreign Secretary during his visit to Bahrain at the time of the Suez affair, and the British Government acceded to the Ruler's request at that time primarily because they felt themselves responsible for the troubles in which the Ruler was then involved with his own people. It is for the party opposite, which supported that adventure, to decide whether or not the moral obligation it then accepted was one which arose naturally out of its actions in another part of the Middle East.
That time is now long passed. These men have already been deprived of their liberty for four long years. The question on which the House is now being asked to decide is, what shall be done in 1960?
There is no question whatever that these men are now exclusively under the jurisdiction of Her Majesty's Government.

That has not been questioned by any Government speaker. I suggest to the Lord Privy Seal, however, that there is also no question, at any rate from the Government's point of view, that they were also under British jurisdiction when they were in Bahrain from the moment on 19th December when the Order in Council applying the Colonial Prisoners Removal Act was made to apply to Bahrain. The Foreign Secretary gave evidence to the Privy Council on this matter when it was considering the prisoners' appeal. The Foreign Secretary stated in so many words that with the passing of the Order in Council all other subjects of the Ruler of Bahrain—that is, subjects other than those who were previously under British jurisdiction—came under British jurisdiction. Indeed, the ground on which the Privy Council rejected the appeal was precisely that Her Majesty's Government, from the moment that the Order in Council was made in this House, became the possessor of jurisdiction over all the citizens of the Ruler of Bahrain.
It is no good the Lord Privy Seal talking, as he did, about some restricted jurisdiction in this matter. The Foreign Secretary's evidence to the Privy Council was quite explicit and was not in any way conditional or restricted. These men were under British jurisdiction from the moment when, on 19th December, the Order in Council came into force. They were under British jurisdiction in Bahrain just as much as they are under British jurisdiction at this moment. For this reason, Her Majesty's Government are completely free under law to change the sentence which was made by the Ruler of Bahrain before the Order in Council came into effect and, if they like, to release these men unconditionally tonight. There is absolutely no obstacle in law to the Government doing this forthwith.
The Lord Privy Seal tried to persuade the House that the Government had some sort of treaty arrangement with the Ruler under which they were obligated to return these men to the Ruler's custody—not, I suggest, to his jurisdiction, because the Government, under the Order in Council, still have jurisdiction over Bahrain, according to the Foreign Secretary's evidence to the Privy Council. The Lord Privy Seal suggested that we have an obligation to return them to


the Ruler's custody whenever he asks for them. I suggest that the right hon. Gentleman has produced no evidence for this whatever. The only document which he has quoted to the House to support his claim is a letter by the Ruler of Bahrain to the British Resident in Bahrain in which he asserts certain things which he says he has agreed with the Governor of St. Helena. As far as I am aware, no corresponding obligation has ever been asserted by the Government until this day. In fact, it is entirely within the discretion of Her Majesty's Government to decide whether or not they regard the Ruler's assertion as in any way binding on them.
I suggest that the agreement is not an agreement in any formal or legal sense whatever. It is simply a statement by the Ruler as to what be believes to be the situation. This statement has never been confirmed in writing by the Government as being the understanding of the Government. Still less has the statement been embodied in any formal agreement with the Ruler of Bahrain.
It has been suggested, notably in the Press this morning, that in some sense Her Majesty's Government in 1956 made a bargain with the Ruler under which they were allowed to take these men into their custody on condition that if the Ruler wished, they should be returned. It is quite clear, however, from everything that has been said in this House and from everything that is public knowledge, that there was no bargain whatever. The fact is that the Ruler of Bahrain asked Her Majesty's Government to do him a favour in taking these men off the island of Bahrain because the Ruler did not feel competent to suppress the disorders which, in his view, would undoubtedly have taken place had these men been left on the island. Her Majesty's Government did the Ruler a favour in 1956. They are under no obligation, moral or legal, to do the Ruler another favour in 1960 by transferring these men to the Ruler's custody.
Every argument of justice and humanity demands that we should now release these men. Indeed, the Government have accepted that this is their own view by formally requesting the Ruler of Bahrain to do exactly that. There can be no argument whatever about what is the right, the just, the

human and decent thing to do. The Ruler, however, has refused to do the right, the decent and the just thing.
Therefore, this is the question facing Her Majesty's Government and facing all hon. and right hon. Members in this House tonight. The Ruler of Bahrain having failed to do what Her Majesty's Government, as well as Her Majesty's Opposition, regard as the right, the decent and the just thing, should the Government, who are under no formal obligation whatever in this matter to the Ruler of Bahrain, betray their own convictions, fly in the face of all the basic principles of humanity and transfer these men into the custody of a Ruler who has demonstrated by refusing clemency that he is still terrified of them as political opponents?
The Lord Privy Seal has given no assurance that if these men are returned to the custody of the Ruler, their sentence will not be doubled or that their heads will not be cut off the moment they step ashore at Bahrain. As far as this House is aware, the surrender of these men by Her Majesty's Government to a Ruler who regards them as dangerous political enemies and who has proved by his conduct at an earlier stage of the case that he has no regard for what we consider to be the principles of justice is completely unconditional.
The case we have tried to put today is a double case. We have argued, as we have argued in the past, that for Her Majesty's Government to take custody of these men in the first place was a political blunder. But we have argued the much more serious point that for the Government to offer now to return them to the Ruler's custody would be not only a political blunder, but a moral disgrace.
By returning these men to the custody of a Ruler whose standards of justice are as they have been demonstrated to be in this House today, Her Majesty's Government are not only compounding ancient errors of policy which have already gone far to destroy Britain's position in the Middle East: by taking this action, the Government are flying in the face of every principle of common humanity and British justice.

9.45 p.m.

Mr. Heath: By leave of the House, Mr. Speaker, I will make a few closing remarks after what, I fear, was a long contribution earlier in the debate.
This matter today arises, as you will recall, out of the Motion for the Adjournment on the removal of these prisoners out of our jurisdiction to another jurisdiction
… without due process of law.
We have had a very complicated and technical discussion about this, but throughout there has been no discussion of what exactly the hon. Member for Wednesbury (Mr. Stonehouse) meant when he raised this today in referring to the removal of these prisoners from one jurisdiction to another
… without due process of law.
I still do not know what he meant to imply by those words "due process" when he raised the matter.
We have the power, under the Prisoners Removal (Bahrain and St. Helena) Order, 1956, to return these prisoners to Bahrain, and therefore the whole question of the technical basis of the Adjournment is dealt with by that single sentence under the Order which I have quoted earlier.
The hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) has raised the question of our legal position in Bahrain. We do not have unlimited jurisdiction over these prisoners. We have jurisdiction to deal with them in accordance with provisions of the Colonial Prisoners Removal Act and the Order which was made under that Act.
This includes the right to make an agreement with the Ruler of Bahrain for the return of the prisoners to him at his own request. That is our legislative position. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] We made that agreement that the prisoners would be subject to what is known as The Agreement. It is headed "The Agreement" in the document placed before the Privy Council. There must have been an agreement for the prisoners to be moved in the first instance.

Mr. Healey: rose—

Mr. Heath: I am afraid that I cannot give way. That was the arrangement under which the Ruler asked us to move the prisoners, which was covered legally by the Order made under the Act, to be detained in custody in St. Helena. As I have said earlier, there were discussions between the Ruler and the Political Resident about this matter and it was agreed.

The Ruler expressed his agreement in the letter I have quoted.

Mr. Healey: rose—

Mr. Heath: That document has been in existence since the removal of these prisoners and has always been accepted by the Government as an agreement with the Ruler. The Ruler himself has always so regarded it. Otherwise, of course, the prisoners would never have been moved in the first instance.
The Government are not going to say at this stage, four years afterwards, that this is not an agreement and that we are perfectly at liberty to free these prisoners whenever we decide. Those were not the terms of the undertaking with the Ruler, and the agreement does not give us that liberty.

Mr. Healey: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way. I wish to ask a question on the far more important prior matter of whether the Government consider that they have jurisdiction over the subjects of the Ruler. The Foreign Secretary was asked to give evidence on this question to the Privy Council because the prisoners' representatives maintained that it was wrong in the first place to extend Colonial Prisoners Removal Act to St. Helena. The Foreign Secretary argued that Britain had jurisdiction over the men from the moment that the Order in Council came into effect. He suggested that there was no restriction whatever on Her Majesty's Government and that it had acquired legislative jurisdiction in Bahrain.

Mr. Heath: I am endeavouring to explain that it is legislative jurisdiction, and this gave us power to deal with prisoners in accordance with provisions of the Colonial Prisoners Removal Act. That is what legislative jurisdiction means, and it is what I understand the Foreign Secretary was referring to in evidence quoted in the judgment of the Privy Council.

Mr. Paget: rose—

Mr. Heath: I cannot give way again. This is a complicated matter, and that is how I understand the position. The Ruler has confirmed the conversations which he had at the time with the Political Resident. They are the conditions


under which these arrangements were made, and these are accepted by Her Majesty's Government.
All this, of course, has arisen out of the comments which have been made in the House about the detention of these prisoners in St. Helena. I should like to emphasise again that it was because of that that my noble Friend approached the Ruler. Therefore, I must take exception to many of the comments which have been made about the Ruler asking for these people back in order to grab hold of them for some nefarious purpose. That is not the position. The position was that we took the matter up with the Ruler ourselves and we explained the feelings that existed about the continued detention in St. Helena itself.
As the right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) said, in fact the Ruler's fears may have been confirmed that at some time or other we should point out to him whether we considered this desirable or not. That is the position and not that the Ruler has suddenly made an approach and is suddenly wanting to get these people back in his own power for some purpose.

Mr. Callaghan: We accept the position that it was because of a feeling in the House that the Foreign Secretary then approached the Ruler of Bahrain and put to him what he thought was the position. May I put it to the Minister that it has become quite clear during the debate that not only this side of the House but a number of his hon. Friends are disturbed about the position? If the initiative was started because it was thought that was the feeling of the House, would the right hon. Gentleman not continue in that initiative and would he now represent that the feeling of the House is not that they should not remain in St. Helena but that if they should be returned to Bahrain they should not be incarcerated? Will the right hon. Gentleman make representations to that effect?

Mr. J. Grimond: If the Ruler refuses that, can the right hon. Gentleman give an undertaking that these men will not be sent back until the new application for habeas corpus has been heard and any further representations from them have been received by the House?

Mr. Heath: I explained to the House that my noble Friend explained to the Ruler that it was our wish that he should look at this again from the point of view of showing clemency to the prisoners. He has not found himself able to do that. If they are returned they will be in exactly the same position as the two men who were sentenced at the same time as they were and who have been there under detention for some time.
The hon. Member for Wednesbury asked about the information for which the solicitors of these prisoners have asked. It has taken time to obtain the information because most of it was not in this country. It had to be sent for and it has been difficult to obtain, but I give an undertaking that as much as possible of this information when obtained will be given to the legal advisers of these men.
Yesterday when I answered Questions in the House I said that I was anxious to give the House a statement for the reasons that I mentioned. The matter was first raised in June and on several occasions I have had to tell the House that I was still unable to make a statement and that I was anxious to make it at the earliest possible moment. I did so and I said that we were considering the arrangements that could be made for the return of these prisoners.
This is quite a difficult and lengthy operation because special arrangements have to be made. I assure the House that it will not be possible to do this before the end of the Recess on which we are about to enter. I can therefore give an undertaking to the House that arrangements which may be made for their return will not take effect before the end of the Recess.

Hon. Members: Hear, hear.

Mr. Callaghan: Why not follow that up with representations?

Mr. Heath: I can also tell the House that when arrangements are put into effect I will notify the House. That is a perfectly fair undertaking. It will also give time for the information to be supplied to the solicitors of the prisoners who have asked for it and for them to consider legal action.
I know the House will understand that on the question of considering legal action one cannot go on for ever leaving the matter open to enable them to decide whether they want to take legal action, because that could drag on for a long time. I think that this is a fair arrangement. It will give time for information to be supplied to their solicitors, and for them to consider the matter of legal action.
As regards the Ruler, the Political Resident will be able to inform him of the views of the House. I will naturally consider what the hon. Member and right hon. Members on the Opposition Front Bench have said, but we have already made representations to the Ruler. Some of the remarks which have been made in the House tonight are, I think, unjustified and will undoubtedly be distressing. That is regrettable because the Ruler of Bahrain has been a very loyal friend of this country for many years. I would not like this friendly and loyal relationship to be interrupted, but I will consider what the hon. Gentleman said.

Mr. Healey: I am grateful for some of the remarks made by the Lord Privy Seal. I do not think that my right hon. and hon. Friends would wish to divide the House on this matter if they had an assurance that Her Majesty's Government will again approach the Ruler on the question of the return of these men. [An HON. MEMBER: "Their release."] First of all, their return. I think it is clear from the views expressed on both

sides of the House that no one would wish these men to be returned to the custody of the Ruler of Bahrain. The Lord Privy Seal has said that the Ruler of Bahrain himself does not wish the return of these men and that the matter arose only because Her Majesty's Government approached him. Can we have an assurance from the Lord Privy Seal that he will keep these men in St. Helena, and that in the meanwhile he will continue his representations for the total release of these men?

Mr. Heath: Having already approached the Ruler of Bahrain and he already having in turn, in view of our representations, made his request to us, the position is slightly different from the position before we approached him. I am prepared for the Political Resident to approach him again to discuss this matter in the light of what has been said. What I cannot do is to give an undertaking as to what the Ruler's decision will be in the situation which has now changed from that in which we made our representations to him and in which he made his reply. I cannot give an undertaking as to what the Ruler's decision will be, but, in the light of the debate, I will see that the Political Resident discusses this matter with him.
I hope, after this very long and complicated debate, that we shall folow the wisest course.

Mr. Paget: In the light of what the right hon. Gentleman has said, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Motion.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

Orders of the Day — BETTING LEVY BILL

Postponed Proceeding on Consideration of Bill, as amended, resumed.

Clause 4.—(ASSESSMENT OF OR EXEMPTION FROM BOOKMAKERS' LEVY.)

Mr. Fletcher: I beg to move, in page 5, line 29 after "aforesaid", to insert
and the accounts upon which it is based".
The Amendment was put down during the Committee stage, but by arrangement with the Government was at that stage left over for more careful consideration at this stage. You will appreciate, Mr. Speaker, that the effect of Clause 4 is to give the Levy Board considerable power over decisions made by the Bookmakers' Committee. The scheme of the Bill is that in the first place each individual bookmaker is responsible—

It being Ten o'clock, further consideration of the Bill, stood adjourned.

Proceedings on Government Business exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of Standing Order No. 1 (Sittings of the House).—[Mr. Redmayne.]

Bill, as amended, further considered.

Mr. Fletcher: I was saying that the scheme is that, in the first place, every individual bookmaker shall be responsible for making a declaration and that on the basis of those declarations the Levy Board will divide bookmakers into different categories. It is contemplated that there may be some circumstances in which the Bookmakers' Committee will not be satisfied with the accuracy or veracity of a bookmaker's declaration, and it is therefore necessary that there should be some machinery to enable it to challenge that declaration.
What it is to do is not apparent in the Bill. It appears that the Bookmakers' Committee can scrutinise and examine the declaration and take certain steps to put the bookmaker in a different category only if it does not like the declaration. The object of the Amendment, which is a probing Amendment, is to find out whether it is intended that the Bookmakers' Committee should have some genuine power to exercise, some quasi-judicial function, so that it can send for a bookmaker's accounts to see whether his declaration is accurate.
Unless it has some power of that kind, it will be very difficult for it from a mere study of the declaration to see whether it is true or false. If the matter is to make any sense, it will be necessary to give the Committee power to see the accounts on which the declaration is based.

Mr. Vosper: I noted that the hon. Member for Islington, East (Mr. Fletcher) said that this was a probing Amendment. The Government could not accept it for reasons which I shall give very briefly.
First, the Amendment assumes that the levy categories will be determined on the basis of profit, but the House earlier decided that the scheme should not be confined to a profits basis and that it would be open to the Levy Board and the Bookmakers' Committee to provide a scheme based on the number of employees, or on the rateable value of premises, or on the number of telephones. If such a scheme were devised, it would be quite inappropriate for the bookmaker to be asked to submit accounts.
The second reason is that the Peppiatt Committee itself considered this matter and its proposal was tied to profits. Even so, it did not propose that bookmakers should submit accounts. Indeed, its scheme was deliberately framed to avoid the disclosure of accounts and profits to a committee of rivals. That would be objectionable in principle, and so a scheme dividing bookmakers into categories was devised so as to avoid submission of accounts to a committee of rivals, and the scheme proposed by the Peppiatt Committee and that envisaged in the Bill avoids the submission of actual profits, figures and accounts by the bookmaker.
There is a third objection to the Amendment, which is that the burden on the administrative staff of considering and examining the accounts of thousands of bookmakers would be almost impossible.
However, I appreciate that the hon. Member is anxious about how the scheme will work. The Board will promulgate a scheme as a result of which bookmakers will have to declare their profits in a certain category. The Bookmakers' Committee will then scrutinise


those declarations and, if it has reason to believe that a bookmaker has put himself in the wrong category, it can reassess him. If the bookmaker complains against his reassessment, the matter is adjudged by the Appeals Tribunal. At that stage, it will be quite proper for accounts to be submitted and if the bookmaker chooses not to submit accounts to the Appeals Tribunal, he will be penalised in the sense that the Tribunal cannot lower his category. If the bookmaker opts out at that stage, he will be penalised.
This is the fairest scheme, but it departs slightly from the Peppiatt proposal, which, I repeat, did not envisage that accounts should be submitted. Nor does the scheme proposed in the Bill, and I would suggest to the House that, as this is a scheme in which the bookmakers will have to find the money, it will be in their interests to operate the machinery proposed in the Bill, and that it would not be in the interests of the House to require them to submit accounts.

Mr. Fletcher: In view of the full explanation which the Minister has given, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Renton: I beg to move, in page 5, line 29, to leave out from "and" to the end of line 34, and to insert:
if, in the case of any bookmaker whose declaration is scrutinised under this subsection by the committee, the committee are of opinion that he falls into some other category than that stated by him in his declaration, then, unless an assessment notice or certificate of exemption has already been issued to that bookmaker in respect of the levy period in question, he shall be assessed to or exempted from the levy for that period by reference to that other category".
This is a drafting Amendment in order to clarify subsection (3), which the hon. Member for Islington, East (Mr. E. Fletcher) so fairly criticised during the Committee stage on the ground that, although the subsection was clearly intended to refer to the case in which the Bookmakers' Committee scrutinises and rejects a declaration, it appeared also to deal with those cases in which, after scrutiny, it was prepared to accept it. We hope and we genuinely believe that that defect has been cured by the wording of

the Amendment. I think that that wording is self-explanatory, and I will not trouble the House any further.

Mr. Fletcher: I am much obliged to the Under-Secretary. He has met my point fully and I think that his drafting is admirable.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Gordon Walker: I beg to move, in page 6, to leave out lines 10 to 12, and to insert:
shall not confirm the assessment unless the tribunal is affirmatively satisfied, on the evidence made available to it, that the assessment is in all the circumstances just and reasonable".
It is getting late and we do not want to delay matters, and, therefore, I will not speak at length on this Amendment, though it is one to which we attach perhaps more importance than to any other Amendment in the whole of the proceedings on this Bill, both in Committee and on Report stage. Certainly, it is one of the most important.
The purpose of it is to shift the onus of proof on appeal by a bookmaker to the tribunal from the bookmaker to the Levy Board. As the Bill now stands, if a bookmaker thinks that he has been put in the wrong category or anything of that sort by the Levy Board, he can appeal within a certain time to the tribunal. As the Bill stands, he would then have the onus of proving that the Levy Board has made a mistake. This proposal was in the Peppiatt Report, and, as I think I said on Second Reading, it shocked me very much when I saw it there. It shocks me all the more when I find that Ministers have put it in the Bill.
It does not seem to me that they can shelter under the Peppiatt Report when they have rejected a great deal of that Report, and have been picking and choosing as they like. I hope that they will not shelter, on a matter which refers to what is a principle of liberty, behind the Report of a Committee which they have rejected when they did not like it. On general principles, it is wrong that the onus should be on a person who is appealing, and in particular in this case, it seems to me that it is especially wrong, because we are giving very special powers to the Levy Board. We are giving it powers to vary or to impose taxation, and to discriminate between one class of


bookmaker and another, in effect, by changing a bookmaker's category. It will have enormous powers of taxation, with no answerability to Parliament. In fact, the Government are conferring upon the Board greater powers of taxation than they would ever dream of taking, without any Parliamentary control.
If, in addition, we realise that the onus of proof is also put against anyone appealing against the Board's decision, we can appreciate what an incredible position we have put the Board into. If the Government impose taxation and somebody appeals, the onus is upon the Government to prove that that person comes into the category of taxation laid down under the legislation which, they claim, imposes the taxation. That consideration does not apply in the case of the Board. It has been given immense powers, and will be out of our control once the Bill becomes law. After that we can never again ask a Parliamentary Question about it, or raise any matter concerning it in the normal proceedings of the House.
This provision seems to be so grave an infringement of our general principles of government that I cannot believe that the Government will follow the Peppiatt Report in this respect when, in many other cases, that Committee's recommendations have been rejected. It is no defence of what the Government have done for them to shelter behind the Peppiatt Report. If they are going to do this, let them admit that they are departing from some of the chief principles upon which our law, especially our tax law, is based.

Mr. Renton: As the right hon. Member for Smethwick (Mr. Gordon Walker) has said, this is a very important matter, because it affects the burden of proof. Even at this late hour I shall endeavour to explain the matter, without going into too great detail, although it will not be possible to give a full explanation in two or three minutes.

Mr. Gordon Walker: Take three or four.

Mr. Renton: It may take a little longer.
When a bookmaker appeals to the tribunal that tribunal has power to confirm, increase or reduce the assessment,

or to grant a certificate of exemption. The two rules governing this power are laid down in paragraphs (a) and (b), and it is important to see exactly what they do. Paragraph (a) provides that the tribunal must not reduce an assessment or grant a certificate of exemption if the appellant has not afforded all the facilities which may be required for an investigation of the case, and paragraph (b) provides that the tribunal must confirm an assessment unless adequate evidence has been forthcoming that it should be varied or rescinded.
The effect of the Amendment would be to substitute for the provision in paragraph (b) a provision to the effect that the tribunal must not confirm the assessment unless evidence has been forthcoming that it was just and reasonable. The Amendment is technically defective for the purpose which the right hon. Member has in mind. As amended, the Clause would provide that the tribunal could not reduce the assessment unless it had been afforded all the facilities required, nor would it be able to confirm an assessment unless there was sufficient supporting evidence. If the appellant has not afforded all the required facilities the tribunal is forbidden to reduce the assessment by virtue of paragraph (a), and is forbidden to confirm it by the proposed paragraph (b).

Mr. Gordon Walker: It is not forbidden to confirm it; it is merely forbidden except on certain conditions.

Mr. Renton: At any rate, the right hon. Gentleman will probably agree that the only course open to the tribunal then would be to increase the assessment, because of the negative form in which the Amendment is expressed. The result, I am afraid, is therefore the reverse of what the right hon. Gentleman has in mind.

10.15 p.m.

Mr. Gordon Walker: If indeed that is the case, though I took the highest legal advice, I hope that the hon. and learned Gentleman will not rest on this technical argument, because words could be found to do what I am trying to do and they could be inserted in another place.

Mr. Renton: I was coming to that. I do not think it right for Governments


merely to take technical defects in Amendments and to rely solely upon them. At the same time, it would be wrong for the Government to fail to give advice to the House, with the result that a Bill would be made technically wrong. Having given the advice, I hope that the House will not accept the Amendment.
May I deal now with the purpose which the right hon. Gentleman has in mind? It would be helpful were he to bear in mind that when the Bookmakers' Committee decides to reassess a bookmaker, he has two choices. He can either accept the assessment or he can appeal against it. If he appeals, the effect is that he subjects himself to an independent inquiry, and provided that he makes available all the necessary facilities—obviously only reasonable facilities would be required by the tribunal—it is for the tribunal to decide to reduce, confirm or increase the assessment, or to grant a certificate of exemption.
If profits are to be taken as the basis of categories, the tribunal will certainly require that the accounts be audited by an independent auditor in the event of a dispute, because these things will come to the tribunal as the result of a dispute, between what the bookmaker declares his category to be and what the Bookmakers' Committee believes from its knowledge of him that it should be. The situation dealt with in paragraph (a) can arise only when an appellant refuses to make all reasonable facilities available for the appeal to proceed and the purpose of the two paragraphs (a) and (b) together is to cover the two possible contingencies and, I think, the only contingencies which can arise.
There cannot be a punitive increase in the assessment as the result of a wrong shifting of the burden of proof, which is what the right hon. Gentleman fears, merely because an appellant has refused to make available the necessary evidence. Paragraph (b) as the Bill is drafted protects him, and we feel—

Mr. Gordon Walker: Protects him from what?

Mr. Renton: It protects him by ensuring that the assessment must be confirmed unless the tribunal is satisfied

that the assessment should be varied or rescinded. Surely that is protection on the wording of the Bill as it stands, and we have to remember that it is the bookmaker himself who has chosen the category and put it into the declaration that he makes. So it is he who has taken up a particular stand and, therefore, it is not unreasonable when that stand is challenged that he should provide the material for enabling the tribunal to see whether he has taken a stand on the right category. In those circumstances, I do not think it could be said that an unfair burden of proof has been placed upon him.
It would certainly be the other way round if he had in the first place been put in the wrong category by a third party, in other words, by the Bookmakers' Committee. But that is not what the Bill does. It enables the bookmaker himself to choose his own category, and if there be a dispute it is up to him to defend it. That was recommended by the Peppiatt Committee after careful thought, and we also have given careful thought to the matter. I hope that now that the right hon. Gentleman has heard the explanation, he will feel not only that his own Amendment would not be suitable, but also that no other Amendment is likely to improve upon the wording of paragraph (b).

Amendment negatived.

Clause 7.—(RECONSTITUTION OF TOTALISATOR BOARD.)

Mr. Vosper: I beg to move, in page 8, line 14 to leave out "and (4)" and to insert "(4) and (5)".

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Gordon Touche): I think it would be convenient also to take the Amendment: in line 20, after "State", insert:
and shall hold and vacate office in accordance with the terms of the respective instruments under which they are appointed".

Mr. Vosper: Yes, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. These two Amendments apply to the Totalisator Board the same principle as was applied by an earlier Amendment to the Levy Board, that is to say, the terms of appointment shall be stated in the instrument appointing the members of the Board.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In line 20, after "State", insert:
and shall hold and vacate office in accordance with the terms of the respective instruments under which they are appointed".—[Mr. Vosper.]

Mr. Vosper: I beg to move, in line 23, at the beginning to insert:
Subject to subsection (8) of this section".
I hope it will be convenient, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, also to consider the next three Amendments.
All these Amendments cover the same point, which is the second instalment, the first of which was an Amendment accepted by the House earlier this evening. Members of the Totalisator Board cannot at the moment be Members of the House of Commons, but, by virtue of this Amendment, they could be Members of the House of Commons if they received no remuneration or, in the words of the last of these Amendments:
the Totalisator Board shall not by virtue of subsection (4) of this section have power to pay remuneration to any member of the Board who is for the time being a member of, or nominated as a candidate for election to, the House of Commons".
The Government have considered this matter carefully and come to the conclusion that, provided no remuneration is made, there is no reason why Members of this House should not be members of the Totalisator Board as previously they could be members of the Betting Control Board.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: In page 9, line 22, at beginning insert "In".

In line 24 leave out
shall have effect as if for".

In line 26 leave out from "Board" to end of line 27 and insert:
are hereby repealed; but the Totalisator Board shall not by virtue of subsection (4) of this section have power to pay remuneration to any member of the Board who is for the time being a member of, or nominated as a candidate for election to, the House of Commons".—[Mr. Vosper.]

Orders of the Day — Second Schedule.—(APPEAL TRIBUNALS.)

Mr. Gordon Walker: I beg to move, in page 13, line 16, at the end to insert:
Provided that any such rules shall require any such tribunal to sit in public.

I think the Government will agree that we have facilitated the fairly rapid passage of this Bill through the last two stages. This will be the last bit of legislation before we rise for Christmas, and I hope that either the right hon. Gentleman or the hon. and learned Gentleman will be able to give us an answer on this Amendment which will send us home happy for Christmas.
This is a small but important point. Of course it is right and proper that the ordinary rules of a court, so to speak, for this tribunal should be fixed in the normal way. We do not object to the Lord Chancellor and other people fixing these rules, but when we are dealing with something which in some sense or other is taxation, we think we ought not to leave the rights in connection with the tribunal, which so to speak is a court of law involved in judging tax matters, without making absolutely certain that there is no conceivable chance that it might ever sit in camera.
As I have said we are not going to have Parliamentary control over the activities of these Boards and these tribunals. Therefore, we have a certain duty to make sure that justice should be done and the essential thing in a tribunal which in effect is judging taxes imposed upon citizens, bookmakers in this case, is that it should sit in public. The Bill does not provide for that anywhere. It seems that this could not be held to be an infringement of the rights of various people who under this Bill will have powers to make rules of court and so forth. It is not quite enough to say that they would always be expected to sit in public, for Parliament here has a certain duty.
We should be doing our duty if we carried this last Amendment and gave this final bit of security to the bookmaker that he would be certain if he appealed to the tribunal that his case would not be hushed up or heard in camera, but he would have his say in public.

Sir H. Oakshott: I agree absolutely that, in general, these proceedings should be heard in public, but the Franks Committee made one or two reservations on this question. I wonder whether the Minister, upon reflection, might not think that this is one of the points which


concerned that Committee. During the Committee stage we passed an Amendment proposed by the hon. Member for Islington, East (Mr. Fletcher) which increased the penalty for disclosing bookmakers' private affairs after the assessments have been made. It seems to me that this Amendment might be giving official sanction to the very same thing. In principle, I think it is a good thing that these appeals should be heard in public, but I wonder whether this does not fall within one of the exceptions which the Franks Committee had in mind. Therefore, it might be a mistake to allow these appeals to be held in public.

Mr. Gordon Walker: The hon. Gentleman will recognise that these secrecy provisions do not apply to reports of the tribunals. It is intended in the Bill that tribunal proceedings should be reported and secrecy does not apply to the reports. It applies only to disclosures by people.

Sir H. Oakshott: I appreciate that. What I had in mind was that evidence given before tribunals of this sort might disclose the very thing which the Amendment the hon. Member for Islington, East proposed last week was seeking to prevent.

Mr. Renton: The right hon. Gentleman claimed that the Opposition had facilitated the passage of this Bill, and I would not dissent from that. Indeed, I would thank him for the stimulating and critical interest which he has shown. He felt that it would be an expression of Christmas good will on our part if we were to accept this Amendment, but I do not think the bookmakers would take it as such. It would mean that every sitting of the tribunal would have to be in public. I must say that I would not have thought that, bearing in mind that the profits which a bookmaker makes will frequently be the subject of discussion, most bookmakers would prefer that these proceedings should be in private. The position is somewhat

analogous to that of Income Tax assessment appeals where, as the House will recollect, the general practice is for the proceedings to be in private.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bebington (Sir H. Oakshott) mentioned that the Franks Committee, while expressing the view that generally proceedings should be held in public in order that justice might be seen to be done, nevertheless acknowledged that there are exceptions. It is relevant to refer to paragraph 79 of their Report in which they say this:
The more frequent type of case in which privacy is desirable is that in which intimate personal or financial circumstances have to be disclosed. Few people would doubt the wisdom of the practice whereby hearings before the General and Special Commissioners of Income Tax are held in private in order that details of taxpayers' affairs shall not become public knowledge …
I have no doubt that when my right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor and the Lord President of the Court of Session drafts their rules of proceedings under the Second Schedule to the Bill they will bear in mind what has been said by the right hon. Gentleman and my right hon. Friend and they will also have to bear in mind what is said by the Franks Committee. It would be wrong for me in any way to fetter the discretion which they exercise.
However, I think I can go so far as to say that the rules of court which they make might well provide in any event for the proceedings to be held not in camera if the bookmaker would prefer it that way. That, unfortunately, would not be possible if the Amendment were accepted, and, therefore, without any lack of Christmas spirit, it is my duty—and I think the right hon. Gentleman will acknowledge it to be my duty—to advise the House to reject the Amendment.

Mr. Gordon Walker: I think that is a powerful argument and, in order that we should end on a happy note, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read the Third time.—[Mr. Vosper.]

10.30 p.m.

Mr. Peart: I shall not delay the House, but I should just like to say before the Bills passes Third Reading that I think that the tribute which was paid to my right hon. Friend by the Joint Under-Secretary of State is accepted, certainly by every hon. Member on this side of the House. We have tried to be constructive in working on the passage of the Bill. We think it is a good Bill. We have tried to amend it here and there, and I stress, for example, my own theme, the place of the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons. The Bill is as it is because our Amendments have not been accepted, but here and there concessions have been made in spirit. I am certain that the Secretary of State, who in the end is responsible for this, will administer the Bill in the spirit manifested upon the benches opposite, on the Government side.
We wish the Horserace Betting Levy Board well in its very important work. It will have an important task to improve horse racing and to see that the funds are disposed of properly for proper purposes to improve horse breeding, and also to improve veterinary science and veterinary education. The Board will therefore have to raise very large sums of money from the bookmakers. Whether or not we should get involved in an argument about how the bookmakers will get the money—whether they will get it back from the punters—at least we must admit that the burden of the Bill falls on the ordinary bookmaker.
My right hon. and hon. Friends have tried by our Amendments to protect the small bookmaker. I am certain that the Bookmakers' Committee will carry out its work in that spirit, that no harm shall be created but that justice shall be done. The bookmakers are now going to contribute a very large amount of money which may be £1½ million, which may be more. Probably the hon. Member for North Fylde (Mr. Stanley) takes the view that more should be raised. However, I hope that whatever is the result it will be used wisely.
I say only, in supporting the Third Reading, that we have tried to approach the Bill constructively, that we wish the Board well, and that we hope the funds coming from the industry will be used wisely for the purposes mentioned in Clause 1.

10.33 p.m.

Sir H. Oakshott: I rise literally for one minute. As it was in response to a Parliamentary Question of mine that the Home Secretary set up the Peppiatt Committee, I wish to say to my right hon. Friend how much I personally have appreciated the speed with which he has proceeded with this matter and how much I believe that this Bill will contribute to a cause which I have very much at heart, which is the betterment of this magnificent sport, which I think hon. Members on both sides of the House enjoy. I should like to say "Thank you" to my right hon. Friend.

10.34 p.m.

Mr. McAdden: I do not think any hon. Member on either side of the House would doubt that I am interested in the sport of horse racing, and I wish to do all I can to help it forward. Nevertheless, I should be less than honest if on Third Reading of the Bill I did not say that I am not very happy about it at all. I say so for a number of reasons.
First, I am a little worried about the indecent haste with which the Bill has been pushed through the House. Second Reading, the Committee stage, Report stage and Third Reading have been rushed through in a couple of weeks. I am surprised that the Bill was not sent to a Standing Committee, where argument might have influenced opinion, instead of being committed to a Committee of the whole House where one knows that, no matter what one says, the steam roller will come into operation and people who never heard any arguments will come in and bring the weight of their votes to bear, thus rendering as nought the arguments which have been expressed. It would have been much better if the matter had been argued out in Committee and we had been able to discuss it sensibly, with the knowledge that those who would vote knew what it was all about.
Another thing which worries me is that the Bill, to which we are now being invited to give a Third Reading, almost completely ignores the advice of the Peppiatt Committee. My hon. Friend the Member for Bebington (Sir H. Oakshott), of whom I am greatly fond as a person, claimed credit for having urged the Secretary of State to set up the Peppiatt Committee. He might at least have gone on to say that the Home Secretary has ignored practically every word of advice which the Peppiatt Committee gave.
The House on Third Reading is committing itself to giving an outside body without any Parliamentary control the right to levy an unknown amount of taxation upon a body of Her Majesty's citizens. The Peppiatt Committee recommended a figure of £1½ million. The House is permitting the Board to levy whatever sum it likes upon bodies of Her Majesty's citizens without any restriction. It is madness. It is mad that the House should absolve itself of any responsibility for the levying of taxation and should leave it to an outside body to do these things for it.
Another thing which worries me is that the House has been obsessed with the idea that the Bill was dreamed up by the Home Office since the Peppiatt Committee reported. The hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) gave the game away last week. He said that the Bill had been in preparation for a long time. I hope I did not do the hon. Member an injustice by inferring that the Jockey Club and the Racecourse Betting Control Board have been working on this for ages. The Bill is the result of their labours.
The Peppiatt Committee was set up merely to give, if I may quote from Mark Twain, an air of verisimilitude to an otherwise bald and unconvincing narrative. That was the whole object of the exercise. The poor racehorse owners and breeders were starving. The hon. Member for Dudley mentioned the bookmakers. All these people were starving and needed help from somewhere. The only way they could get some help was to set up the Peppiatt Committee which would, by its recommendations, give an air of verisimilitude to the claims they were making.
This is not born out by the facts. The Peppiatt Committee recommended the figure of £1½ million. The House has seen fit to ignore those recommendations in their entirety. We say that there is to be no maximum figure and no minimum figure and the Board can levy what it likes on the bookmakers, who are jolly glad to have it.

Mr. Stanley: Hear, hear.

Mr. McAdden: Of course my hon. Friend the Member for North Fylde (Mr. Stanley) is glad to get money from anywhere. That is what my hon. Friend said—"Hear, hear." At least let us be honest about it. The House will divorce itself of any sense of responsibility if it commits itself, as it proposes to do on Third Reading, to leaving the responsibility for the levying of an unspecified amount of taxation to an outside body.
I am delighted to see that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health is in the Chamber. I remember that, in a very powerful speech from the back benches before he became Minister of Health, he said how dishonest and abject this sort of thing was. I am delighted that my right hon. Friend has come to support me by his presence this evening. I am sure that his presence is a tribute to me and that he knew that I would say exactly what he said when he was a poor, humble back bencher.
Although they may take comfort in getting the Bill through fairly quickly and from the fact that we may be able to adjourn for Christmas fairly quickly, I hope hon. Members will pause sometimes and think whether perhaps we have been as fully responsible as we might have been and whether it is fair that we should shoulder our responsibilities on to someone else and whether it is right that the House should say, "Never mind what injustice there may be. It is not our fault. It is the fault of the Levy Board or this or that board."
No words of mine can prevent this going through, because the steam roller comes into operation. Nevertheless, it seems a great tragedy that the House should pass into law a Measure which commits us to giving a body which is outside the control of Parliament the power to levy taxation to any limit it


likes without regard to the individual rights of citizens. I did what I could during the passage of the Bill to be fair, reasonable, brief and not too argumentative, but my efforts have been in vain and the House may well regret the step that has been so precipitately taken during the last few weeks.

11.41 p.m.

Mr. Wigg: I should like once again to pay tribute to the hon. Member for Southend (Mr. McAdden) for enlivening our proceedings on this Bill and on a previous one. He ran true to form. He spoke with great force and with his usual mild inaccuracies. The Peppiatt Committee did not recommend £1½ million. It was £1 million to £1¼ million. A margin of 20 per cent. is fairly normal and one allows for that. It is equally untrue to suggest that when I said last week that the Bill had been long in course of preparation it was because the Bill had been cooked by the Government and the Racecourse Betting Control Board.
The start of the story as far as the House was concerned was in a debate on 9th March, 1956, which followed six years after the setting up of a Committee by my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) and when no Government had done anything about it. I expressed the view that I did not think that any Government of any political colour would do so, because I thought that this was a very hot subject. It was also true that the Government could not stop at the Betting and Gaming Act. They had to go back to the source of the trouble. If racing is carried on in a way not above suspicion, what flows from that affects not only racing. It spreads throughout the whole body politic.
I would remind my hon. Friend the Member for Southend of some of the things that are being said in the pubs and the clubs at present. They are very unpleasant. It is suggested that the Government have now given increased pay to the police as a quid pro quo for the bribes that they will not now get from the bookmakers. I do not associate myself with that.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Gordon Touche): It is going beyond the Third Reading of the Bill.

Mr. Wigg: It is going beyond Third Reading, but what I ask for on the eve of Christmas is the same latitude as the hon. Member for Southend enjoyed. The truth was that the Government once they had gone into this could not stop half way. Our debate in March, 1956, made that clear. It was spelled out by hon. Member after hon. Member, and I said myself that the reform of the racing and betting laws might well be left to a private Member. I had a go at it myself, but what help did I get from the hon. Member for Southend? He counted me out and did his best to stop it.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I think that we had better return to Third Reading.

Mr. Wigg: The point I am making is that the hon. Member for Southend should not squeal if, when he and his hon. Friends did their best to prevent piecemeal reform with the result that a private Member could not do this, the Government ultimately had to do it because they were dealing with a subject which had become a major evil. It had spread over from corruption of racing. It was corrupting the sources of power in the State. The policeman who starts by taking 10s. from a bookmaker can eventually end up doing much more serious things. The Government have set about reforming this in their own way. I confess that I shared some of the doubts of the hon. Gentleman over the Betting and Gaming Bill—and I hope that I do not transgress the Rules of Order in saying that.
This Bill is fair, and I think that the hon. Gentleman is unfair to the Government in what he says. It is just not true that the Bookmakers' Committee or the Levy Board or the new Totalisator Board will be able to do as it likes. The right hon. Gentleman, by very carefully writing into the Bill the appointment of the chairman and the two independent members, has his hand on the brake. As he has said, with some wisdom, he has tried to take the whole subject away from the Floor of the House—

Mr. McAdden: Will the hon. Gentleman tell me where in this Bill my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has any hand on the brake in regard to the amount of money that will be raised by the bookmakers?

Mr. Wigg: The right hon. Gentleman has himself put down an Amendment which enables him to make modifications. By modifications, he can replace the proposals—all of them—

Mr. McAdden: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would not wish to misrepresent the facts; in spite of the circumstances that we sit on opposite sides of the Chamber we more or less understand each other. This question of the modifications depends on my right hon. Friend's interpretation of how the money should be spent. What I ask the hon. Gentleman is what restrictions exist in the Bill by which the Home Secretary can exercise control over the amount to be raised—not the amount to be spent.

Mr. Wigg: After all, the Home Secretary will appoint wise men to the Levy Board—he will appoint just men. He will have the same control over this as any hon. Member has over the nationalised industries—[Interruption.] Yes, certainly. He leaves the people in the industry free to run the show in their own way, and they are answerable to him, and he to Parliament, in the tabling of their annual report.
I should have thought that the last thing that any hon. Member would want would be concern with the day-to-day details. Indeed, hon. Members on both sides have tried to avoid the day-to-day questioning of industries that are under the control of the Executive; they have tried to avoid making them answerable in this House in the form of Parliamentary Questions and so on. I should have thought that with regard to an occupation that is sport to most people, we would want to keep as far away as we could from the details, while at the same time making the industry answerable to Parliament through the submission of annual reports.
The Home Secretary has tried to maintain the control—keep his hand on the brake—and, at the same time, he has tried to give the industry the opportunity to run its own show, something for which the hon. Member for Southend, East should be grateful. There was a time, and we do not have to go very far back into history, when bookmaking was not regarded as being exactly respectable. At one time, the

bookmakers sought a charter in order to turn their occupation into a profession.
The Home Secretary has now given them, through their representatives, the opportunity to go into partnership. The hon. Gentleman knows that it was not very long ago that bookmakers were denied membership of the racing clubs. Now, not only can they come in as equals, but they are invited to come right inside, to play their part and to co-operate in the management of the industry and in the spending of the money. And, I repeat, it is not their money. It will come from the ordinary punter in much the same way as the money for the Racecourse Betting Control Board comes from the ordinary punter.
How will that money be spent? It will be spent for the good of racing—not for the benefit of the owner or the breeder but of the ordinary person who likes to go racing and who wants to have a bet. That man wants clean racing and reasonable amenities, and he wants them at a price he can afford to pay.
If the bookmakers are wise, they will try to make their Bookmakers' Committee work. They will try to ensure that their chairman plays his full and responsible part on the Levy Board. The result will be that the Home Secretary will have taken the industry's running away from the day-to-day questioning in this House, and will have laid the foundations of a working partnership between all the representatives throughout the industry.
The hon. Gentleman can play his part—and I am sure that he will. He has sounded his warning, but I am sure that he hopes that he will be proved wrong—as I know he will be—and that we will have an equal partnership. He and I, I know, will do our best to make this work. If it does work, he may well in future find that the first, second and third in the English classics will all be bred and trained in England, they will be ridden by English jockeys, and our bloodstock will bloom. Once again, we shall have a sport—I emphasise that for most people it is a sport, not a business—of which we shall all be proud.

10.51 p.m.

Mr. J. Morrison: I hope that the misgivings of my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Mr. McAdden) will prove to be unfounded. Having already declared my interest in the Bill, I wish merely to thank very sincerely the Home Secretary, the Minister of State and the Under-Secretary of State for all their very hard work in promoting and pushing through a Bill which I trust will be of lasting benefit to British racing, which will help the British public to have added comforts when they go racing, and which will enable the British bloodstock industry to compete on more nearly equal terms with breeders in other countries.
It fell to my lot many years ago to congratulate the hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) on his maiden speech. I think I ought to thank him and his right hon. and hon. Friends now for their co-operation in the friendly way in which they have handled the passage of the Bill.

10.52 p.m.

Mr. Ede: In giving this Bill a Third Reading, we are making one of the big steps in the English social revolution which has been going on through the lifetime of every one of us here. Who would have thought at the beginning of this century that we should see stewards of the Jockey Club and people interested in horse breeding in this House watching the passing of a Measure which would transfer from the pockets of the proletariat money which would go to the upkeep of their sport and the race courses and breeding in which they take such delight? This, indeed, is the most curious but the most striking example of the way in which we now all accept the benefits of the Welfare State.

10.53 p.m.

Mr. Renton: I have been sitting patiently waiting to see whether there were any points to which I ought to reply as a result of the discussion on the Third Reading of the Bill. There are no specific points, but, since one or two doubts have

been injected into the debate by my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Mr. McAdden), I hope that I may very quickly try to resolve them, although I realise that I have an uphill task.
My hon. Friend said that we have ignored the recommendations of the Peppiatt Committee. I say to him in all sincerity that we have not ignored those recommendations. We have accepted them in the main, and we have improved upon them in detail in the light of mature reflection. He had a short dispute with the hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) about whether or not there would be a brake on the money raised from the bookmakers. To remove all doubts, I should say that the brake envisaged by the Bill is that the chairman and the two independent members of the Levy Board, who will be impartial people, will have the last word. It is essential that we should choose men in whom we have confidence. My right hon. Friend intends to do that, and, of course, he will be answerable for his choice.
We have quite deliberately left it to the horse racing industry in the broadest sense, including the bookmakers, to operate the scheme. It will be for the industry in that sense to see that it succeeds. We believe that the scheme can provide a tonic for racing and, by helping racing in this way, the "bookies" may indirectly improve their own position.
We are doing this as the last piece of Parliamentary legislation in the year 1960, 300 years after the Restoration. I believe we are writing a new and glorious page in the history of horse racing—a great history which is 300 years old. I believe that in the years to come hon. Gentlemen on both sides who have participated in the proceedings on this Bill will reflect with pride and pleasure that they have done so.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

Orders of the Day — HUMAN TISSUE BILL

Order for Second Reading.

10.56 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health (Miss Edith Pitt): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
I commend the Bill to the House. It is a relatively short Bill, but it is important, and even at this late hour I hope the House will bear with me if I explain the details in order theft they be on the record.
The Bill is one which is mainly concerned with the removal of doubt, but it may nevertheless be described as wholly beneficial and in some cases a life-saving measure. The Bill authorises, subject to a number of reasonable safeguards, the removal of parts of human bodies after death for use for therapeutic purposes or purposes of medical education or research. Without the Bill such removal would be in danger of being held to be unlawful.
Some hon. Members may find the subject a little distasteful, but the Bill is a logical extension and, thanks to advances in medical science, a practical extension of such familiar processes as blood transfusion and the grafting of skin from one part of a person's body to another. In these cases the material comes from the living donor. In recent years it has become possible to make use of some material from dead bodies.
The Corneal Grafting Act, 1952, which will be repealed by the Bill, legalised the removal of eyes from bodies for grafting, and the sight of many has been saved or restored by this process. Now it is medically possible for other tissues, such as skin, arteries and bones, to be successfully grafted. Such material is particularly valuable in serious accident cases and for patients with severe burns, where grafting may save their lives or reduce the disability.
In future it may be possible for other materials, including whole organs, to be grafted with similar success. Because the Corneal Grafting Act specifically authorised the removal of eyes, there has been a natural doubt about the legality of removing other parts. This is acting as a deterrent to progress in this important

field of surgery. The Bill, therefore, authorises in Clause 1 the removal of any part of a body for therapeutic purposes. It also similarly authorises removal for the purposes of medical education and research.
It is important that the dissemination of knowledge and the progress of research should be encouraged. The study and, if need be, the retention of parts of the body are essential for this purpose. The Bill removes whatever doubt there may be as to the legality of this at the present time so long as the conditions in the Bill are complied with.
The person lawfully in possession of a body may authorise the removal of parts of it—subject to one of two methods of agreement. By Clause 1 (1) a request may have been expressed orally (in the presence of two or more witnesses) during the deceased's last illness or in writing by the deceased at any time before his death.
By Clause 1 (2) the person in possession of the body may also authorise removal of the parts unless—having made such reasonable inquiry as may be practicable—he has reason to believe that the deceased had expressed an objection to this or that the surviving spouse or any surviving relative of the deceased so objects. This wording is slightly different from that relating to the removal of eyes under the 1952 Act.
The requirement to make such reasonable inquiry as may be practicable is new, but I am sure it is justifiable. When the Corneal Grafting Act was passed it was thought wise to issue advice on this aspect to hospital management committees and boards of governors who are the parties "lawfully in possession" of the bodies of deceased in-patients.
The Minister advised them strongly not to rely on the power given in the Act to remove eyes in the absence of any known objection, but, wherever relatives were available, to seek their consent. It is proposed to recommend hospital authorities to adopt the same procedure of obtaining the consent of relatives where they are available in relation to the removal of any part of the body as authorised by this Bill.
The hospital authorities will also be recommended to ask the available relatives whether they know of others who might object. Any relative will be able


to object to the removal, and this will override the consent of any other relative, but not the deceased person's own wishes if he has expressed them in the way indicated in Clause 1 (1). This is felt to be a wise precaution to avoid the risk of causing offence to the feelings of any known relatives. It is to be hoped, however, that public feeling will come more and more to accept the very great benefits which this Bill can give to the living. This advance will be helped considerably if more people are willing during their lifetime to make known their willingness that their bodies may be used for therapeutic, educational or research purposes.
Clause 1 (4) of the Bill requires the removal of parts of the body to be undertaken by a fully registered medical practitioner. Clause 1 (5) deals with the position of bodies which may be subject to an inquest or coroner's post mortem examination. The person empowered to authorise removal of the parts of the body, or the doctor who would do so, can take action only with the consent of the coroner when they have reason to believe that an inquest or coroner's post mortem may be required. This is, of course, a necessary safeguard to ensure that the coroner's work is in no way prejudiced, but it is believed that many coroners will be glad to co-operate by giving their consent whenever possible. The consents in Clause 1 (1) and (2) will still be necessary.
This is an improvement on the Corneal Grafting Act, which precluded the giving of an authorisation for removal of eyes where an inquest might be held. It is an important improvement because, in the present state of knowledge, the removal of certain parts of the body must be carried out within a few hours of death if the use of them is to be successful.
The other main proposal of the Bill concerns post mortem examinations. It makes it clear that post mortem examinations carried out by or in accordance with the instructions of a doctor are entirely lawful for the purposes specified in the Clause and subject to there being no known objection from relatives. Clause 2 sets at rest the doubts that have been raised on this score.
It is true that very many such examinations have been and are carried out for very proper reasons, but the provisions of the Anatomy Act, 1832, are such that it is not clear whether or not the Act applies to such examinations. It is true that Section 15 of that Act makes a saving in respect of post mortem examinations required or directed to be made by "any competent legal authority", but this refers mainly to coroners.
It is possible, too, that the Act does not apply at all to ordinary post mortem examinations, but with all these doubts and possibilities it is clearly best to put the position beyond question. Clause 2, therefore, states that Section 15 of the Anatomy Act, 1832, shall not be construed as applying to any post mortem examination carried out for the purpose of establishing the cause of death or of investigating the existence of any abnormal condition of the body.
There is also the same conditions as for the removal of parts of a body—that any relative of the deceased may object to a post mortem examination, and the person lawfully in possession of the body must be satisfied, after having made such reasonable enquiry as may be practicable, that there are no such objections. There is the same need to obtain the coroner's consent in the case of bodies which may be subject to an inquest or coroner's post-mortem examination.
Clause 3 makes a minor improvement to the Anatomy Act, 1832, by allowing for the cremation, as well as burial, of a body which has been used for anatomical examination under that Act.
The provisions in the Bill relating to the removal and use of parts of the body have the wholehearted support of the leading members of the medical profession. It was in another place, during the passing of the Anatomy Bill in 1831, that a noble Lord said that although Parliament had a right to legislate for the people of this country while living it had no right to pursue people beyond the limits of the grave. Some people may still have a reluctant sympathy for this view of the extent to which Parliament interferes. But here certainly is an example of the House being asked with good reason to interfere for the benefit of the living and to put beyond


doubt what the medical profession requires for the improvement of treatment, education and research.
I hope that the House will give the Bill a Second Reading.

11.7 p.m.

Mr. Kenneth Robinson: I am sure that the House would wish to thank the hon. Lady the Parliamentary Secretary for her lucid explanation of this short, important but not entirely simple Bill. It is, on a superficial view, rather a macabre Bill, but that is so only on a superficial view, and we on this side of the House, broadly speaking, welcome it. I am not sure that it is wholly appropriate as the last legislative Measure to be dealt with before we rise for the Christmas Recess, but no doubt that could not be helped.
I welcome the Bill from another point of view. I think that it marks a change of climate. I should like to say a word or two to the House about the circumstances that preceded the passage of the Corneal Grafting Act. My hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Itchen (Dr. King) knows a good deal more about the matter than I. About ten years ago I was approached by certain members of the medical profession about the difficulties of getting sufficient corneas for grafting. I spoke to the then Minister of Health and asked whether there was anything I could do by way of publicity and Parliamentary Questions. The right hon. Gentleman went away and, having seen his advisers, came back and said to me, "For heaven's sake do not raise this matter. Corneal grafting is going on, but the moment we give it any publicity there will be religious objections and the whole matter may come to an end. So please leave it alone."
In those days I was a fairly new and, consequently, very docile Member of the House, and I complied with the Minister's request. Nothing was done. But along came my hon. Friend the Member for Itchen, who was, I am happy to say, rather less docile. He had received similar representations, and he went ahead in conjunction with the then hon. Member for Tonbridge, Mr. Gerald Williams. He ignored the official discouragement which he received and eventually leave was sought to introduce the Corneal Grafting Bill.
This was done in a six minutes' speech by Mr. Gerald Williams and the House gave leave to introduce the Bill. Such was the reality of the opposition that had been feared that the Bill a week or two later passed through its Second Reading, its Committee stage, its Report stage and its Third Reading in the space of thirty seconds, without a single word being uttered on either side of the House.
We have come some way in that today this Bill is being brought forward openly and officially by the Minister of Health as a Government Measure. This is a revolution in thought that we can all welcome. Many of us are lost in wonder at the strides that have been made in recent years in plastic surgery and grafts of all kinds. I think that we would all wish to facilitate a Bill which makes it legally possible beyond doubt to use deceased human bodies for this purpose, subject of course to the proper safeguards.
I think that most people would be willing to co-operate in this way, but it is a fact, as the hon. Lady said, that all too few of them—of us I should say because I have done nothing myself about it so far—take the trouble to express willingness in its proper form during their lifetime. I echo the hopes of the hon. Lady that the Bill and the publicity attending it will stimulate people to express their willingness for their bodies to be used in this way after death. Perhaps it is something of a comfort to those of us who feel that we have been pretty useless in our lifetime to think that we will be positively and practically useful after death. But more seriously, it is a satisfying and I think in some ways an inspired thought that the dead can help the living in this way.
I understand that there are possibly some quarters in which there are religious objections to the Bill and its provisions. Some of us who do not share those objections may feel that they are in some way obscurantist, but nevertheless it is proper that they should be taken into account, and I think that those objectors, who are numerically very few, can be satisfied that the Bill fully safeguards their position.
I would like to ask the Minister one or two questions. First, can he say a word about the supply of corneas?


There were some rather disturbing exchanges in another place as recently as April of this year when it was stated that many hospitals, including Moorfields, were suffering from a serious shortage of corneas for grafts. I think it was suggested that at Moorfields there were 100 people on the waiting list, and that people were having to wait eighteen months before they could have a corneal graft, and that is eighteen months of unnecessary blindness.
Also, will the Minister amplify what the hon. Lady said about the effect of the Anatomy Act? I have gone into this, and I cannot at the moment see how the Anatomy Act, with Section 15 in particular in mind, casts doubt on the legality of the practice at the moment. It may be that it attaches conditions to hospital post mortems which are rather too onerous, but possibly the Minister could expand that point a little.
I think that the Anatomy Act is most fascinating. It followed the 1828 Select Committee to which the hon. Lady referred. That Committee, I gather, followed the scandalous and widespread practice of body snatching, of which the most notorious exponents were Messrs. Burke and Hare. But this practice grew up only in response to the increasing demand for corpses by the medical students of that time, and there is at this moment exhibited in the Library the Minutes of that Select Committee. They certainly make fascinating, if somewhat gruesome, reading. There is on the page which happens to be open the examination of a witness who prudently conceals his identity as "Mr. A. B." because he was by trade a body snatcher. He tells of the bribing of gravediggers and sextons, and boasts of an average of 50 to 60 bodies snatched in a year, and up to 100 in a single good year.
The last question that I want to ask the Minister is about this legal entity,
the person lawfully in possession of the body.
I have not been able to discover very much about this person who appears for the first time in the Anatomy Act. All that one can gather is that though he is not, as one might imagine, the next-of-kin, he can be the executor; he can be a group of persons, or a body corporate. He can be, I gather, the master of a

workhouse in which somebody dies. The hon. Lady told us that in the case of a hospital
the person lawfully in possession of the body
is the management committee, or presumably the secretary to the management committee acting on its behalf. I understand that it was recently held in connection with a rather unpleasant case which came to the attention of the House that a mortuary keeper was also a
person lawfully in possession of the body".
In that case I should have thought he was most certainly acting as the agent for some authority or group of persons. I feel that we need some clarity here. I should have thought that this Bill should have been the occasion for defining a little more precisely who is
the person lawfully in possession of the body".
I hope the Minister will deal with these points when he winds up the debate. Apart from these very minor reservations, we on this side of the House warmly welcome the Bill.

11.16 p.m.

Miss Joan Vickers: I also welcome this Bill. In doing so, I would say with the hon. Member for St. Pancras, North (Mr. K. Robinson) that I think the title a little unfortunate. I wonder whether the Minister could consider another title. I would like to suggest something like the "Human Aid to Medical Science Bill." The actual effect of the present title might be to put some people off. I hope that in Committee we might consider that point.
I was glad that the hon. Member referred to the Corneal Grafting Act, 1952. When I made my will in 1957 I definitely willed my eyes under that Act to an eye bank, and when this Bill becomes an Act I shall add a codicil to my will so that my body may become useful after death. All of us in this House and those who read HANSARD will, I am sure, do their best to make their bodies and minds as helpful in the world as they can. Therefore, I welcome the idea that one might carry on some use for one's body after one is dead, and particularly welcome the Bill for that.
I think it will be helpful to medical students. I am not a doctor, but we have a doctor in the House tonight.


Practical work on a body can be useful to students. They can get used to manipulating the body with their fingers, which is better than watching someone else doing it or a film. The Bill can aid the advance of medical education. It should also be welcomed by animal lovers, because I presume that further use of bodies and experiments by students with bodies may mean that we shall have fewer experiments on animals. That should commend itself to those who are always worried about that aspect of the matter.
I think that we shall learn by the Bill a great deal which will be of help in curing various diseases about which we know very little at present. I presume it will mean that not only various parts of the body can be used for curing people who are ill but that they can be used for research work. That is something I welcome very much, because research with an actual human body can be very beneficial. Perhaps we may even learn how the brains of Parliamentary draftsmen work.
I wish to ask my right hon. Friend a few questions. Does the age of a body make any difference to its usefulness to science?

Dr. Horace King: Age makes no difference to the usefulness of eyes provided there is sight there when the person dies.

Miss Vickers: Eyes obviously are useful when there is sight, but the body becomes feeble and perhaps parts wear out. I wanted to know whether age made any difference to the usefulness of the body.
I should also like to ask whether there is any limit to the number of bodies which may be required. Can my right hon. Friend announce that so many bodies are needed at a given time so that people who would give their bodies may know the need and they may then consider giving them and making preparations? If a body is not in a hospital or nursing home or other institution and a person wishes his body to be used in this way, who is to be responsible for taking the body away, and who will pay for the cost of removal of the body? Is it borne by the executors of the person who is dead, or by the people

lawfully responsible for the body, or is the cost to be borne by the National Health Service? I should also like to know what time is to elapse before the removal of the body. Must it be removed at once—quickly? I think it is important people should know these details if they are to act on them when a person dies.
I welcome the Bill with these few words, as I think it will be a great help in the study of disease, and I hope it will be of benefit to humanity, not only in this country but, through research, a benefit to people in other countries of the world.

11.21 p.m.

Dr. Horace King: One of my happiest political memories is of having collaborated with a Conservative colleague, Mr. Gerald Williams, once Member for Tonbridge, in conducting a campaign in 1951 and early 1952, both in the country and in the House of Commons, which led to the passing of the Corneal Grafting Act, 1952. I should like to place on the record tonight long overdue appreciation of the services in that campaign of the Kent and Sussex Courier and the Daily Mirror and of leaders of the medical profession in the attempts which we were making to win public support for what now reaches its real fruition in tonight's new Measure.
The Corneal Grafting Act, which is to be repealed if the Bill is carried, was a Private Member's Bill which was introduced, as my hon. Friend the Member for St. Pancras, North (Mr. K. Robinson) said, under the Ten Minutes' Rule by Mr. Gerald Williams, and thanks to the generous co-operation of all Members of the House whom we had endeavoured to educate in the significance of the Measure it got through all its remaining stages in a few seconds on one evening—on the nod, to use a Parliamentary term. I always remember that while my colleague was doing the formal work in the House I was still at the last minute trying to convince one or two last minute objectors not to deprive us of the privilege of getting the Bill unopposed through the House. I can remember, incidentally, how distressed Lord Morrison was, as an old Parliamentarian, that legislating without debate should happen at


all, even though the Measure was a good one, as this was. In May, 1952, the Ministry, which I had found so unsympathetic, as the Parliamentary records show, in May, 1951, was helpful and co-operative and helped us to get our Bill through.
But even before we had begun my hon. Friend himself, the Member for St. Pancras, North had been at work along the same lines. I am quite certain that he is as delighted as I am, and as Mr. Gerald Williams must be, at the enlargement of that first Measure by this Bill. This Bill proposes to repeal among other things the Corneal Grafting Act. I am delighted. In the Corneal Grafting Act we went as far as we thought we could take the House and public opinion with us at that time. The case was, as I shall hope to show, quite precise, quite narrow, and quite clear, but in our speeches up and down the country some of us visualised the day when the Measure which we were introducing would be supplanted by a much broader one. It is that broader Bill which is before the House tonight, and I want most sincerely to congratulate the Minister for introducing it.
I think it may help the House if I show it some of the beneficial effects of the Corneal Grafting Act. Among all the blind there are some who are blind not because the eye is defective but because the cornea itself is damaged or diseased. The cornea is a kind of covering of the eye, a kind of window through which the real eye looks.
If the cornea is defective—if it is opaque, blurred or cracked—even if the eye behind is a good one, it will not be able to see properly. Skilful surgeons in this century have discovered that by one of the superb operations which are the mark of modern surgery it is possible to remove a diseased or damaged cornea and replace it with a new one. In this way, always provided that the eye underneath is a good one, sight can be restored to the blind.
I wish I could convey to the House the wonderful joy I have experienced in watching these marvellous operations and in meeting and talking with in rooms down below and bringing to the public on television, with my colleague and with Mr. Rycroft, the great eye surgeon, men and women who were once blind or were going blind but who are now

able to see, thanks to surgeons like Rycroft of East Grinstead and Zorab of Southampton, to mention only two. Some of them again see clearly enough to read. Some of them see enough to be at any rate aware of light and of objects around them.
The cornea from a dead person's eye is grafted on to a living eye. Nature's gift to this miracle of surgery is that it is possible to graft this portion from one human being on to another. Unfortunately, surgery has not yet made possible the practice of universal grafting of all kinds of tissue.
I was glad that the Parliamentary Secretary said that year by year we are discovering more and more ways of overcoming the difficulty that part of the body of one human being somehow will not marry with the body of another, but usually dies when transferred. When we have discovered how to do that, the possibilities of exchanging some of the organs of dead people and using them to prolong the life or health of living people will be immeasurably extended. I am sure that every hon. Member was touched deeply this week by the noble story of the father who gave one of his kidneys to save his son's life, but gave it in vain.
One of the difficulties that surgeons experienced before the passing of the Corneal Grafting Act was to get human eyes for grafting. I will not go into all the difficulties, but the chief obstacle was the Anatomy Act, 1832. This was an excellent Act of Parliament. I only wish the debates on the Act in the five of six years it took to get it through the House had been conducted in the spirit in which tonight's debate is being conducted.
Those debates were conducted under the shadow of body-snatching, the desecrating of graves by the so-called "resurrection men," and of criminals like Burke and Hare, who sold dead bodies to anatomical surgeons in anatomical schools for dissection. If Burke and Hare could not get the bodies by what became the more difficult and dangerous process of digging them up from graves, they murdered people so that they would have a supply of bodies for sale.
When the Bill came before the House so bitter and superstitious was the atmosphere that one of its opponents


called it an Act to encourage "Burking", although it was designed to prevent the crimes which Burke and men like him had committed.
In the Second Reading debate on 22nd January, 1832, the radical and rather charlatan Mr. Hunt said that a surgeon had threatened to dissect him for daring to oppose the Bill. The hon. Member, striking an attitude, said:
Let him take care at least that he did not Burke him first.
The hon. Member himself proposed that everyone who supported the Bill should be dissected.
The young Macaulay supported the Bill in one of his early eloquent speeches in the House, but the bitter and superstitious opposition of the time and the fears expressed in the debate were responsible for all kinds of delays and ambiguities put into that Anatomy Act at the Committee stage. One of the most important delays from the surgeon's point of view was the one that required 48 hours to elapse before any medical man could tamper in any way with the body. With the growth of medical science the clash with the restrictions and ambiguities of the Anatomy Act became each day more apparent and more and more an obstacle to sight-saving. The Corneal Grafting Act of 1952 has made it possible for surgeons to obtain eyes without the delays imposed upon them by the Anatomy Act. The provisos in that Act were simple. They were that a dead person had written or said that he wanted his eyes to be used for such purpose or had never expressed objection to his eyes being used for such a beneficent purpose, always provided in the latter case that the dear ones of a dead man or woman had no objection to their being so used. The proviso that we drew up in the Corneal Grafting Act are repeated word for word in this Bill.
The ending of delay was vital. The cornea has to be taken within a few hours after the death of the person otherwise it deteriorates. If it is taken soon enough it can be kept in a refrigerator and preserved. Most of the great eye hospitals today have an eye bank, and the Bill will help most of the great surgical hospitals to have a tissue bank

to which human tissue can be taken and preserved provided that it is taken from a body soon enough.
The inaugural meeting of the Corneal Bill campaign was held at the Victoria Hospital, East Grinstead, famous for the magnificient work of the late Sir Archibald Macindoe in skin grafting and of Mr. Benjamin Rycroft in eye surgery, and both of them only typical of a number of eminent surgeons working in these fields whose achievements I regard as almost miraculous. I said at that meeting that I could hardly imagine a greater joy than to think that one's eyes, having served one life, should after one's death be instrumental in restoring somebody's sight. If it is true of corneal grafting it is equally true of any other human tissue that may be used to help the living after serving the dead.
I commend the Bill to the House and suggest to the Minister that some day he and his Government might raise this matter at United Nations level. Whilst most blindness may not be curable, that due to defective corneas can be cured. There are hundreds of thousands of blind persons in the depressed areas of the world who suffer from corneal blindness. If we could build up as part of world civilisation a great tissue bank whereby the dead would be helping the living it would be a wonderful thing.
The Bill is drafted much more broadly, more generously and more scientifically than the earlier Act which it repeals but which at the same time it includes in a wider Measure. The Bill is wider in scope and therefore more beneficial in the good that it can do. It helps the dead to help the living. I welcome it enthusiastically. I congratulate the Minister and I hope that the House will give it a Second Reading.

11.35 p.m.

Lord Balniel: I welcome the Bill and, without being presumptuous, I should like to welcome the way in which it was introduced by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health. The Bill, though not controversial and not one which, as far as I know has attracted any public attention, is a fairly important Measure. I welcome the serious manner in which my hon. Friend introduced it, matching its serious content.
This is an important Bill because it touches on some of the most deeply-felt instincts of man; instincts that say that the human body, once life has been extinguished from it, should be treated with the utmost dignity and respect, and that, pending interment or cremation, it should be left in peace. These instincts are felt by most persons, whatever religious—or, indeed, irreligious—beliefs they may have.
I confess that I shared those instincts when I first read the Bill. Knowing some of the consequences that will flow from it, I read it with a certain amount of emotional disquiet. On the other hand, if one tries to throw away untenable prejudices and to look at the matter objectively, there is something infinitely wonderful in the thought that the advance of medical science now enables men to use the tissues and organs from a dead body in order to bring health and happiness to the living and, in particular, to those who, because of misfortune or disease, are deprived of the good health that most of us enjoy.
To my mind, there is something infinitely wonderful in the thought that this advance that we are now legalising enables medical science to create something approaching the immortality of the living cell, because the living cell will now be transferred, and can be transferred from generation to generation, bringing with it new health.
Indeed, if one looks at the subject in a slightly wider context, it is even more wonderful, because although at the moment we know of operations whereby the living cell tissue is grafted from the living to the living, and that, under this Bill it will be legal to graft the living cells from the dead to the living, we realise, even in passing this Bill, that this is a terribly transitory phase, and that almost certainly within the lifetime of the younger generation it will be possible for medical science to create artificial living tissue which will bring health to those now suffering ill-health and misfortune.
The hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Dr. King) has referred to one of these operations that we read about in the Press by means of which living tissue is transferred, often at great cost to the individuals who have submitted themselves

to mutilation to bring health to others, and particularly to their children. Even since the publication of the Bill—only a short time ago—an article appeared in the Sunday Express which, with the permission of the House, I will quote.
The article was headed "Inspiring", and read:
This was the choice that faced Mrs. Edna Frost, of Salford. In order that her 15-year-old son Kevin, a polio victim, should walk, she had to consent to giving up bone from her shins.
Now Kevin runs and plays football. Mrs. Frost is hobbling, having spent months in a wheelchair.
There are many types of courage. But surely none ranks higher than that which—coolly facing pain and mutilation—still stands the test.
I must say that for human beings to be willing to undergo operations like that—deliberately to undergo the mutilation of their bodies to bring health to children or others, ranks for cool courage with the courage of a soldier in the heat of battle who is prepared to lay down his life for a friend.
We look forward, under this Bill, to the time when that kind of operation will be totally superseded; when the tissue will be taken, not from the living at the cost of the living, but from the dead. We look forward to that time, and therefore welcome this Bill.
Like the hon. Member for Itchen, I feel a temptation to look back to the antecedents of the Bill. Time is short and I shall not do so, except to refer to one aspect of the matter. The hon. Member for St. Pancras, North (Mr. K. Robinson) said that the Anatomy Act, 1832, had overcome the difficulties of the anatomy schools and put an end to body snatching. This was not entirely so. If the House will permit a slightly macabre story, it was as late as 1880 that the body of my great-great-grandfather was stolen from its tomb. I confess that I do not think that the thief imagined that the anatomy of the premier earl of Scotland was superior to the anatomy of any commoner; I think he imagined that the purse of the family was slightly longer than the purse of most. In this he made a great mistake. The long ancestry of the premier earl of Scotland had inculcated into the family


a sense of thrift which he had not bargained for, and he was left with the body on his hands for almost a year.
The problems of the anatomy schools have been solved by the 1832 Act, but other problems have arisen nevertheless, and there is no doubt that there is confusion in the law at the moment. This confusion has been aggravated by the passing of the Corneal Grafting Act, 1952, which, by legalising specifically corneal grafting, has cast doubt on the legality of post-mortem operations of the kind we are discussing.
While I welcome the Bill, I have one question to ask. I have no great technical knowledge and I do not claim to have detailed information on the subject, but, like other laymen, I have heard of the world-famous Bethesda Hospital, the naval medical research centre at Maryland in the United States of America. I thought it of interest to look up something of the work undertaken at that hospital in order to see what relevance it had for us in this country and, in particular, in relation to this Bill. I am not in any way squeamish, I think. Unlike the right hon. Lady the Member for Warrington (Dr. Summerskill), I can sit through a boxing match without too much worry. After being educated at a British public school and going through normal Army life, one ceases to have an excess of sensitivity. I cannot deny, however, that, when reading the description of the work undertaken at the Bethesda Hospital, I felt myself going slightly white around the gills.
I had not realised how immensely complicated is the post-mortem operation which has to be undertaken, and which we propose shall be legalised under the Bill. I understand that the average post-mortem operation at this hospital lasts between 12 and 14 hours. It is not a desultory operation; it is, in fact, continuous and intense. I am told by a friend who is well acquainted with the work of the hospital that the operation has to be undertaken by not one but by a series of surgeons, and, as a result of the intensity of the work, they are incapable of undertaking any other work for a considerable time afterwards.
I had not realised that, for instance, the aseptic regulations are considerably stricter than the aseptic regulations in

any normal operation. Throughout the operation, although all are wearing double masks, no talking is allowed for fear of aerial borne bacteria contaminating the tissue which is to be grafted on to living persons. During the operation, anything up to 130 grafts, any one of which can give health and, indeed, possibly life to others are obtained.
The complexity of the operation, combined with what the hon. Member referred to as the speed at which the operation has to be undertaken after death, seems to me to lay the matter open to certain difficulties. The speed with which the operation has to be undertaken after death is very great. Although in theory the consent of relatives has to be obtained, I understand that in Bethseda Hospital the consent of relatives is obtained while the patient is still living and the operation is undertaken instantly upon decease.
It seems to me that the complexity of the operation combined with the speed does enhance the possibilities of foul play—through the elimination of evidence. I have read the safeguards which my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health has included in the Bill under Clause 1 (5), but the onus of securing the safeguards rests with the person having reason to believe an inquiry may be required. I would ask my right hon. Friend to consider these safeguards during the course of the Bill to make sure they are adequate. They are not, for instance, as strong safeguards as are required in the event of cremation being undertaken, and I would have thought they should have been as firmly written into the Bill as in the event of cremation.
Permission under the Bill has to be obtained from any surviving relative. My right hon. Friend shakes his head, but I think I am right—that permission has to be obtained from the spouse or any surviving relative. What does "any surviving relative" mean? Most of the Front Bench are related to one another nowadays. My right hon. Friend is a notable exception. But we are all to some extent related. Would it not be desirable in the interests of accurate drafting rather than this rather slipshod drafting, to lay down the limit of consanguinity from whom permission should be obtained?
Subject to these questions, which I hope the Minister might bear in mind, I welcome the Bill with great pleasure.

11.47 p.m.

Dr. Dickson Mahon: We all appreciate the contribution which the noble Lord the Member for Hertford (Lord Balniel) has just made, particularly his last point. No doubt the Minister is grateful for being exempted from the consanguinity that seems to flow through the Government Front Bench.
I think there is a point here. I like to think that in a sense this Bill almost has the spirit of Dr. Knox hanging over it. He was the man who was not hanged as the result of the Burke and Hare episode but was alleged to be the clever, if somewhat sinister, character who more or less pressed on them the need for supplying him with many bodies for his Anatomy rooms.
The Anatomy Act of 1832 is responsible for letting myself and many hundreds of thousands of young men and women over the years dissect dead bodies in this country, and we have learned a great deal from that. Despite the levity for which medical students are renowned, there is no such levity attached to the dissecting rooms. These bodies are treated with the natural care with which one would treat a patient, and while the limbs and trunk are detached so that a more close examination can be followed by one, two, or three students, regard for the person as a person is observed and arrangements at the end of the term involving that body are made to ensure that it has proper disposal in accordance with the religious persuasion and desires of the person concerned.
It is a fact, nevertheless, that the medical schools would be in a sad position if it were not for the poor and the friendless upon their deaths. It is not a large section of the population who will their bodies but a very small section, and of the poor and friendless it is the many who do not take the positive act of willing their bodies who enter the dissecting room. That might well be why some of their Lordships, who debated the original Act, made so many criticisms of it. For example, Lord Wynford in 1831 said that the 1832 Act "would reflect the highest disgrace on the British

Legislature without any benefit to science." He was wrong, because it affected science to a large extent. Certainly Dr. Knox would regard that as a silly argument. I like to think that being a descendant of John Knox and having a German mother, he was a scientist par excellence but regrettably more devoted to science than to humanity.
In discussing this Bill we might think of one fundamental principle. I do not know which side Dr. Knox would fall on in this, but the Minister seems to have made up his mind about the point raised in the closing remarks of the noble Lord the Member for Hertford, and by my hon. Friend the Member for St. Pancras, North (Mr. K. Robinson)—the rôle of the next of kin.
I have a letter from a person who is on the blind register—strictly speaking he is not blind but fulfils the qualifications of the register—and in making various points about getting corneal grafting for his eyes he says:
My third suggestion to the Members of Parliament who might have some influence in this matter is that, though some donor may give his eyes to a hospital, his next of kin can refuse to let those eyes be so taken. This should be done away with.
That is an interesting point, and the Minister must justify either at this stage or later, his acceptance of the principle that the next of kin should have an absolute right of veto. Many people are in the queue for these corneal grafting operations. It is alleged—and my hon. Friend the Member for St. Pancras, North has given an example—that there are 100 at Mootfields. I know a hospital in Glasgow with several dozens such persons, and it has been assessed unofficially in Scotland that there are 130 people awaiting such grafts today. This is a matter which many of us have been concerned about, and I have written to the Scottish Office to elicit the Scottish position.
The Minister must explain further the working of the Corneal Grafting Act for which we are indebted to my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Itchen (Dr. King) and to a former hon. Member of this House for their contributions. He must state and justify his statement whether or not the circumstances which should operate under this Bill will provide the numbers necessary to meet the need.
The semi-blind person I have quoted alleges that it is not that people are unwilling to donate their eyes in sufficient numbers but that there are too few people willing to accede to the donor's wish. One can understand this. It is natural that a widow, grieved by the death of her husband, should, even if he has donated his eyes, decide not to allow it to proceed in the moment of grief. I do not know the figures, but if it is true it is an important factor. The House, in consolidating its legislation on this matter—legislation going back 128 years—might think about this principle.
I know that many medical men disagree with the idea of interfering at all with the right of the next of kin to exercise an absolute veto over any decision related to a body or of the right of the person who is the executor or is in possession of the body. Their argument is that we should popularise the donation of human tissue on death and make people so aware of how vital a contribution they can make that it will overcome even the sentimental or emotional or religious objections of persons who are actually in charge of a body. Various factors can decide this.
While I accept that the Minister must take every Parliamentary opportunity that he can to bring in Bills like this—and there is a long queue awaiting legislation—nevertheless it is important for all Members, and certainly for the Committee later, to be given the facts so that they will be in a position to exercise judgment on how properly to amend this Bill, if it is in need of amendment. I will not recite the list of questions, but, as I have said, in the letter which I wrote to the Scottish Office I asked a number of specific questions, and I hope that the answers which will be given in relation to Scotland might, perhaps, also be given in relation to England and Wales.
The spirit of Dr. Knox might prevail and it might be said that the wishes of the donors should be sacrosanct and that the next of kin ought not to have such an important part to play. I do not necessarily associate the Opposition or any of my hon. Friends with that point of view. I merely put it forward as a principle of objection put up by some of those most intimately concerned.
I have no doubt that the hon. Lady the Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Miss Vickers) has a very good point in her objection to the name of the Bill. One has only to recall the comments of hon. Members outside the Chamber tonight to realise this. It may be a point of misplaced humour, but, nevertheless, it is a point which will not help in making the Bill as well and favourably known as it should be. I believe that we should think of a different title for it. Of course, there are several titles which could be suggested that would be more disastrous than "Human Tissues", but this is a point on which I should like to join with the hon. Lady in commending to the Minister.
I do not wish to embark on looking into the future with regard to advances in medicine, but I am glad that the general terms of the Bill are such that we shall be able to meet almost any forseeable developments in medical science which the law might not find harmonious to its own provisions.
I am surprised that in introducing the Bill, which, if I may say so, she did extremely well, the hon. Lady mentioned that the Anatomy Act and subsequent provisions might be acting as deterrents. I should like to know on what information she bases that opinion. How is it so? How, in fact, is this related—I presume she was speaking in the context of providing subjects for dissection—to corneal grafting? This is something about which the Minister might tell us, and I will make way for him to do so.

11.58 p.m.

The Minister of Health (Mr. J. Enoch Powell): I am grateful to the whole House for the reception which has been given to the Bill. As the hon. Member for St. Pancras, North (Mr. K. Robinson) recognises, the Bill deliberately brings into the open the whole of this question and is an attempt to lay clearly upon the Statute Book the lawfulness of those matters concerning dead bodies which are required for medical purposes, subject to equally clearly stated stipulations and conditions. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that legislation of this importance—and it is important—should be introduced officially on behalf of the Government.
A number of very pertinent questions have been asked from both sides of the


House during the debate tonight, and I should like to attempt to reply to them. The hon. Member for St. Pancras, North asked about the supply of corneas and the present position. I might, perhaps, link this question with that of my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Miss Vickers) who asked whether there was any question of placing a limitation upon the donation of bodies or parts of bodies for the purposes envisaged in the Bill.
I must say that I cannot foresee the happy time when it will be necessary to cry, "Hold, enough." On the contrary, the present position cannot be regarded as fully satisfactory in regard to the cornea which has, of course, a longer history than the removal of most other parts of the body for therapeutic purposes.
The solution to this matter lies in wider public understanding of what is involved—and I hope that this debate will make its own small contribution to that—and in close relationships between the corneal grafting centres and the hospitals in the area to which persons may be brought who have made dispositions of their eyes or which may be in a position to approach, during their last illness, the persons who will die in those hospitals or their relatives.
Propaganda is undoubtedly of importance in this matter, and the House may be interested to know that the Royal National Institute for the Blind is planning a publicity drive, in which it is my intention, as far as I can, to co-operate, to bring to the attention of the public the opportunities and the benefits which donation, of eyes in particular, can give.
The hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friend the Member for Greenock (Dr. Dickson Mabon) asked me to explain a little more exactly how it was that the Anatomy Act, 1832, had cast that doubt which Clause 2, not Clause 1, of the Bill seeks, if it exists, to remove. It happens in this way. Parliament in passing that Act thought it necessary to make a saving for post mortem examinations. However, it only made a saving for post mortem examinations:
required or directed to be made by any competent legal authority.
If it be that an autopsy carried out in a hospital is a post mortem examination

within the meaning of the Anatomy Act, and if it be that the Anatomy Act related to matters which include bodies lying in hospitals and subjected to autopsies, then the doubt can arise whether, not being
required or directed to be made by any competent legal authority
those autopsies fall under any disability which the 1832 Act was designed to remove. It was, as so often, an attempt to remove doubt in the 1832 Act which created the doubt which we seek finally to lay in Clause 2.
The hon. Gentleman asked about the expression in the Bill:
the person lawfully in possession of the body.
He is right in saying that this is a difficult matter. The difficulty arises from the fact that in law there is no property in a dead body. However, I am advised that the expression
the person lawfully in possession of the body
which, as he says, is an expression deliberately carried on from the Anatomy Act, would include a hospital authority in respect of a body lying in a hospital, but that it would not be deemed to include the mortuary attendant of the hospital, nor any person other than a person duly authorised under Clause 1 (7).

Mr. K. Robinson: Before the Minister leaves that point, can he say how the executor comes into this? I gather that an executor is included. What about the relative property rights of the executor and the hospital management committee in the case of somebody who dies in hospital?

Mr. Powell: The difficulty, as the hon. Gentleman recognises, is that property rights is a term which is not here applicable, but I think that the question of a concurrent right over the body arises in regard to a matter to which I want to come later in answer to a point raised by the hon. Member for Greenock, where one might have a clash of intention, and perhaps I might deal with that point in that context.
My hon. Friend the Member for Devonport complained, and she is not the first to do so, that this was probably not the best title which could have been found for the Bill. I do not


disagree. I have been doing my best, and a lot of people have been doing their best for some months, but if my hon. Friend or any other hon. Member can produce something better which will stand up to scrutiny I will certainly see what can be done. I can only say that it was the best that we could manage.
In one of the few flippant sentences which have been uttered during the debate, my hon. Friend referred to the possibility of having available the cranium, or the contents of the cranium, of a Parliamentary draftsman, and indeed it is a charming thought to think of some Hunterian collection of the future containing that trophy. She asked about the optimum age of persons from whose bodies parts may be obtained for therapeutic purposes. I am told that in this respect the cornea is unique in that it is better to get it from an elderly person, but otherwise it is the younger bodies from which, at present at any rate, the more useful tissues for therapeutic purposes might be expected to come.
The answer to her question about the cost of removing a body for the purposes of the Bill where the body is at home is undoubtedly that the cost would be borne and all incidental trouble taken by the hospital which was to benefit by the removal of the parts. She also asked about the maximum time which ought to elapse between death and the removal of the parts. In the case of a cornea it is generally considered that the eye should be removed within four hours unless there has been refrigeration, but, for reasons which I am sure the House will understand, I think I would be doing no service in attempting to give detailed information here because, as scientific procedures are elaborated, one hopes that some of the difficulties may be eased, if not removed, and secondly, because one would wish to do nothing to lessen the sense of urgency on the part of those concerned where use is to be made of a body.
I feel that if there were this sense of urgency, somehow, paradoxially, the natural instincts against this use of a dead body might be counteracted by the anxiety of the relatives, even in the moment of bereavement and distress, to be sure that the wishes of the deceased for the beneficial use of the body should

not be frustrated. So I think the best thing I can say is that there is undoubtedly urgency and that urgency should be understood by all who may be concerned with carrying out these intentions.
Closely allied to this point was the point raised by my noble Friend the Member for Hertford (Lord Balniel), who referred to the safeguards where a post mortem might be required. He may have noticed that the safeguard in the Bill has been strengthened as compared with the Corneal Grafting Act, 1952, for this Bill places the onus, not only upon the authority which authorises the removal, but also upon the doctor who carries out the removal. The Coroners' Society has been informally consulted in regard to this safeguard and has intimated that it regards the safeguards embodied in the Bill as satisfactory.
My noble Friend also drew attention to the phrase, "any surviving relative" and asked its meaning and why it was not further defined. I must point out to him that the expression "permission of a surviving relative", which he used is not strictly accurate. If he looks at the context he will see that the reference is to having "no reason" after "reasonable enquiry" "to believe" that "any surviving relative" objects. In that context I have deliberately left the term "any surviving relative" undefined so that if a relative makes it known, or if there is reason to believe, that there is objection, it shall not be necessary nicely to inquire into the degree of consanguinity; because I am convinced that far more harm can be done to the cause which the House has at heart tonight by a single case in which a strongly held scruple is overriden than perhaps a temporary loss of opportunity due to the width in which this Clause has been drawn. So I say it is quite deliberately left at large, that anyone who can claim to be a relative may be able to express an objection under Clause 1 (2).
That finally brings me to the difficulty which was felt by the hon. Member for Greenock, and which, I hope, I can remove. There are two separate cases covered by subsections (1) and (2) of Clause 1. Subsection (1) deals with the case where the deceased person himself has desired that his body shall be so


used. In that case there is no question of that desire being overridden by anybody. For example, if the body is lying in a hospital, and there is evidence of his wish, there is no question of a surviving relative having a veto over it. The surviving relative only comes in where there is no specific desire known on the part of the deceased person, and where, therefore, it is right to be sure both that the deceased did not object himself to this being done, and that this being done will not outrage the surviving spouse or any—I repeat, any—relative.

Dr. Dickson Mabon: The point I want to make to the Minister is this. I am sorry if he is not able to give us the fact as to the number of people who have, in a sense—I use this term loosely, perhaps wrongly—frustrated the wish of the donors. It is rather important to know exactly what the facts have been. I put this to the Minister. Clause 1 (1) says:
If any person … has expressed a request that his body … be used after his death … the person lawfully in possession of his body after his death may..
Of course, he may not. That is the point. Surely he can frustrate the wishes of the donor?

Mr. Powell: Where that person is, as in the majority of relevant cases that person will be, a hospital, the question of frustrating the wishes of the donor does not arise. I quite agree that in the case of a person dying at home it is conceivable that the known wish may not be carried out by failure, deliberate or otherwise, on the part of the relatives, but I hardly think that in the nature of the case statistics of these instances can be known. So I would not have thought it possible statistically to answer the hon. Member. But the fact is that there is here, as there was in the Corneal Grafting Act, no veto; that so far as humanly possible, while there is no property in a dead body and therefore no formal bequest can be made, we are giving overriding right to the person deceased to ensure the use which he desires of his body after death.
I would agree that we are here not at the end of the road, but we are looking forward. The hon. Member for St. Pancras, North referred to a change of climate over the last ten years, but we all hope that the climate will change

further still, and that the public mind will open more and more both to the benefits and to the utter propriety of the processes which this Bill makes lawful, and in that hope I think we can all feel that the House tonight, on this matter which touches many solemn and even irrational emotions, is doing good work in giving a Second Reading, as I hope it will, to the Bill.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House.—[Colonel J. H. Harrison.]

Committee this day.

Orders of the Day — SUPPLY

[5th December]

Orders of the Day — CIVIL ESTIMATES, SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES, 1960–61

CLASS V. VOTE 5

NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE, ENGLAND AND WALES

Resolution reported,
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £37,665,600, be granted to Her Majesty to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1961, for the provision of national health services for England and Wales and other services connected therewith, including payments to Northern Ireland and the Isle of Man, medical services for pensioners, etc., disabled as a result of war, or of service in the Armed Forces after the 2nd day of September, 1939, certain training arrangements including certain grants in aid, the purchase of appliances, equipment, stores, etc., necessary for the services, and certain expenses in connection with civil defence.

Resolution agreed to.

CLASS V. VOTE 10

NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE, SCOTLAND

Resolution reported,
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £5,212,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1961, for the provision of national health services for Scotland and other services connected therewith, including medical services for pensioners, etc., disabled as a result of war, or of service in the Armed Forces after the 2nd day of September, 1939, certain training arrangements, the purchase of appliances, equipment, stores, etc., necessary for the services, certain expenses in connection with civil defence, and sundry other services.

Resolution agreed to.

WAYS AND MEANS

[5th December]

Resolution reported,
That towards making good the Supply granted to Her Majesty for the service of the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1961, the sum of £42,877,600 be granted out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom.

Resolution agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in upon the said Resolution by the Chairman of Ways and Means, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and Sir E. Boyle.

CONSOLIDATED FUND

Bill to apply a sum out of the Consolidated Fund to the service of the year ending on the thirty-first day of March, one thousand nine hundred and sixty-one, presented accordingly, and read the First time; to be read a Second time this day and to be printed. [Bill 55.]

POWER STATION SITE, HOLME PIERREPONT

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Colonel J. H. Harrison.]

12.17 a.m.

Mr. Speaker: Before the hon. Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. W. Clark) commences, it might be convenient if I indicate what on the face of the matter appear to be some difficulties. As regards discussing the merits, the hon. Member refers to an inquiry which I understand is going on pursuant to Statute, subject to some temporary adjournment. I think that it would be in accordance with the Rulings of my predecessors if I say that, if the Minister be pursuing the method of inquiry laid down by Statute, the House may think that it is not desirable to attempt by any means such as Parliamentary debate to sway his view about a conclusion to which he would have to come upon the outcome of the inquiry. If there were matters relating to the drill of the inquiry, perhaps other issues might arise. I do not know about that.

Mr. William Clark: I am very grateful to you, Mr. Speaker. I shall endeavour to keep within the rules of order. I am sure that you will assist me if I happen to stray. I will try not to stray.
The inquiry, which you, Mr. Speaker, rightly said is going on at the moment, is about a proposed power station at a place called Holme Pierrepont, which is very near to my constituency of Nottingham, South but is actually in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Carlton (Sir K. Pickthorn). I have spoken to my hon. Friend and I hope that, if he is successful in catching your eye, Mr. Speaker, he will be able to make a brief intervention.
Obviously I do not intend to discuss either the merits or the demerits of the siting of the power station. However, in order to state my case I must say something about the power station, its geographical situation, and the fact that when built it will be the largest power station in Europe. It will have nine miles of sidings and, when in full production, will use ten million tons of coal per annum.
It will be sited about three miles from the centre of Nottingham. One can imagine that a power station of this magnitude is bound to dwarf Nottingham. It will certainly tend to dwarf a highly desirable residential area in my own constituency, namely West Bridgford.
Many months ago I received various representations and petitions from my constituents about the power station. I spoke to my right hon. Friends the Minister of Housing and Local Government and the Minister of Power. Eventually, a public inquiry was decided upon. It is about the public inquiry that I particularly want to speak. One must appreciate that anything preceding a public inquiry—about a power station or whatever it may be—raises a considerable amount of local objection.
The public are rather suspicious of the inquiry. Rightly or wrongly, they think that the power station will spoil the amenities of the district. The inquiry was ordered on the 22nd November this year and originally it was to comprise two inspectors, one from the Ministry of Power and the other from the Ministry of Housing and Local Government. When the inquiry eventually started there were not two inspectors but three. There were two from the Ministry of Power and one from the Ministry of Housing and Local Government. This, to my mind, sowed in the minds of the public in and around Nottingham the first seed of discontent in that they did not particularly want the inquiry and that they were told that there would be two inspectors only to find that there were three, of whom two were from the Ministry of Power.
The second thing that happened was that the scheme as originally envisaged contained two chimneys of about 600 ft. in height. Between the commencement of the scheme and the public inquiry the 600 ft. became rather elastic and ended up as 650 ft. I should have thought that the Central Electricity Generating Board which is responsible must have had some sort of consultation with the Ministry of Housing and Local Government to change the original planned chimneys from a height of 600 ft. to one of 650 ft. Bearing in mind the preceding circumstances, again the public thought that here was a scheme run by one of the nationalised boards which,

rightly or wrongly, could be altered at the whim of the nationalised industry concerned. This was the second seed of discontent sowed in the public mind.
I pay tribute to the impartiality and fairness with which the inspectors endeavoured to carry out the inquiry. They did one thing which helped all the objectors in the area. They held a public meeting in my constituency which 400 or 500 people attended. Certain questions were posed to the inspectors and they tried to allay some of the fears. One question asked was whether the Minister of Power would consult the Minister of Health about the danger to health from the smoke that must obviously come from the huge chimneys. The extremely unfortunate answer was that no consultation would be held with the Minister of Health. Bearing in mind that it was known that a few days later medical evidence from the objectors would be presented to the inquiry, the public wondered what was the good of bringing forward medical evidence if the Minister of Health was not to be consulted. This was the third seed of discontent sowed in the public mind.
I must be extremely careful here, but during the inquiry it was maintained by the Generating Board that it was more economical to put the proposed power station on the Holme Pierrepont site than on an alternative site that was offered. Various figures were bandied about by the Board. One was that about £600,000 per annum would be saved in running costs if the station was erected on this site. Objectors in the area are fairly comprehensive. They challenged the figure of £600,000 but on being closely questioned the Board's witnesses would not give any satisfaction. It seemed that the smog of officialdom had descended on these figures and that witnesses hid behind official secrecy and said, "We cannot give you that information."
My point is that if at a public inquiry it is maintained that there will be a saving of £600,000, £700,000 or £800,000—whatever may be the amount—and, under questioning, that figure cannot be substantiated to the objectors, it is evident that the witnesses can just as easily say that the saving will be £5 million or £6 million. It can be put at any figure, if the objectors are not to have the right to question it.
In another place on 1st December of this year, the Lord Chancellor, speaking of another inquiry and referring to fresh evidence being called, said:
I emphasise this point because I should like it to be clearly understood that my right hon. Friend's mind would never be influenced by evidence that had not been made available to the other side—that would be clearly contrary to natural justice—and I should never be a party to a proceeding of that kind.—[OFFICIAL REPORT, House of Lords, 1st December, 1960; Vol. 226, c. 1246.]
Coming as it does from the head of the judiciary, that makes it fairly conclusive that this evidence, whether the amount be £600,000 or £700,000, should be made available to the other side in this case.
The accumulation of the circumstances of this public inquiry has caused a great amount of local concern. Apart from the fact that the local objectors did not want the power station, they find, first, that the inspectorate has been changed from two to three; next, that the height of the chimneys has gone up from 600 ft. to 650 ft.; third, that the Ministry of Health will not be consulted and, finally, that there is this secrecy about the figures.
I have considerable sympathy with the public up there, and I feel, as they do that prima facie the circumstances show that this inquiry has already been settled. The allegation is being openly bandied about in Nottingham and district that although the inquiry is being carried on it will not alter the decision to put the power station there. When it started, the inquiry was estimated to last three or four days; it has already lasted three or four weeks, and has now been adjourned to 23rd January. Obviously, therefore, it will be some time before my right hon. Friends the Ministers of Power and Housing get the report from the inspectors.
I am most grateful to my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary for coming to the House tonight, but I want from him a categorical assurance that the report from the inspectors will be absolutely unbiassed, that all evidence from all the objectors will be considered, and that, if fresh evidence comes out about the figures I have mentioned, that evidence will be given to both sides, including all objectors, even if it means reopening the inquiry.
I have tried not to discuss the merits of the siting of the power station, where-ever it may be, but this matter is not only of local importance to Nottingham. The whole subject of public inquiries is a matter of national importance. The nationalised industries have tremendously wide powers; they should not have the additional wide power of being able to hold a public inquiry more or less as a sop to the public, with the issue already having been decided. I am certain that the impartiality of these various inquiries should not only be expected to be shown but should be manifestly seen, and I hope that my hon. Friend will give me some assurance that will allay some of the concern so widespread in and around my constituency.

12.29 a.m.

Sir Kenneth Pickthorn: The site under discussion is in my constituency, and almost all the winds that blow over it spend most of the rest of their force in blowing over the rest of my constituency. I do not find it very easy to know how, in four minutes, I can say anything that will be helpful to the constituency, especially in view of the extreme difficulties about rules of order. I shall do my best to avoid merits, but I suppose that it is not improper—indeed, it must appear from what has been permitted already—to indicate what the merits must be about.
There are the obvious matters of merit—amenity, green belts, loss of farming land—and then I come to one which has been mentioned already but on which I should like to make another distinction. I refer to health. From the point of view of many, if not most, of those of my constituents who are concerned in this matter, the health factor must, I think, be the most important, and there is a distinction here between health and Health. We may well understand that the Minister of Power is considering, has considered or will consider matters of health, with a small h, although in some particular connection he may not think it necessary to negotiate with or even to consult Health, with a capital H, the Minister of Health. Also, if I may finish the list of the sort of things under which merits must come, there is candour, the giving of all proper information for cross-examination.
It is of immense importance that it should be made plain that all these are the sort of matters which the Minister of Power has in mind, has had in mind and will have in mind, and all of them, perhaps most of all in what they add up to, represent what was referred to in another place—the necessity of justice being seen to be done, openness, fairness, impartiality, natural justice and the rest.
I think it would be very valuable if it could be made plain that there have been communications with the Minister and between the Minister and the Ministers of Housing and Local Government and of Health, and that the Lord Chancellor's assurances mean that under what one might call the Franks Statute he can refer any such inquiry which may seem to him to deserve particular attention for consideration by the Council on Tribunals—and that even if he does not, of course, someone else may. I think it very important that it should be made plain that that is a constant and continuous part of the Lord Chancellor's duty and that he has it in mind in this case as in the previous one to which he referred.
I will say one thing more only, though there was a great deal I should have liked to say. My hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. W. Clark) referred to the opposition being comprehensive. I find it very difficult to judge in arithmetical ways percentages of the population which are really hell-bent against this, hell-bent in favour of it or more or less indifferent. There is a very considerable number of people who have very deep feelings of doubt and even of opposition—quite enough to make it necessary for Ministers to pay every possible attention to the kind of factors which I have ventured to list. Of that there can be no doubt at all.

12.34 a.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Power (Mr. J. C. George): I am filled with admiration at the way in which both my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. W. Clark) and my hon. Friend the Member for Carlton (Sir K. Pickthorn) have kept tightly within the bounds governing the debate. I take it that the points which you have permitted to be put forward,

Mr. Speaker, are the ones which I should answer, and no more than that. My hon. Friend the Member for Carlton expressed the desire that What the Franks Committee described as the characteristics which should mark the proceedings of tribunals—openness, fairness and impartiality—should rule at this inquiry. Indeed, my right hon. Friend hopes and does all he can to ensure, that at every inquiry which he authorises these characteristics do prevail, and he has no reason to think that this one will be any different from the others which have been held under the Electricity Acts.
The inquiry into the Central Electricity Generating Board's proposals to build a power station at Holme Pierrepont has now sat for ten working days, and in addition two days have been devoted to an inspection of the site and of alternative sites. It is to be resumed on 23rd January. Its ultimate duration will be determined only by the need to ensure a full and fair hearing for all concerned. Already the hearing has easily surpassed the previous record for inquiries ordered by the Minister of Power under the Acts.
It is being held jointly by two inspectors, the Chief Engineering Inspector of the Ministry of Power and a Senior Planning Inspector of the Ministry of Housing and Local Government. They—and only they—have been officially appointed. Another inspector from the Ministry of Power is however attending as an assistant. There are not three inspectors at the inquiry, there are two officially appointed and the third, an assistant, is not formally appointed and will play no part in preparing the report to the Minister. This answers the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, South.
It is the usual practice in cases like Holme Pierrepont, where application for consent to a power station raises important planning questions, to appoint an inspector from the Ministry of Housing and Local Government to sit with the inspector from the Ministry of Power. This ensures that the Minister is fully informed on both the technical and planning aspects. The Minister of Housing is clearly very much concerned with the planning aspects of this application, particularly as the proposed site lies in the Green Belt. Also he is responsible


through his alkali inspectors for seeing that emissions from power stations are by the best practical means.
Regarding the change in the proposed height of the chimneys, my hon. Friend has already had a full explanation from my right hon. Friend the Minister, but for the record I will repeat it. In the course of investigations covering this and other matters, the board naturally consulted various Government Departments to ascertain what their requirements might be; the Air Ministry were consulted and they recommended a height of 600 feet to avoid danger to aircraft. But the alkali inspector of the Ministry of Housing and Local Government required a height of 650 feet to allow for better control of emission from the chimneys. That is the simple reason for the change. It was not made by the Board, it was imposed on them. It was not to deceive the public but to improve the health of the public in the area round about the power station if it were to be erected.
There was some anxiety in the minds of both my hon. Friends regarding consultation with the Minister of Health. Obviously this cannot take place until the Minister of Power receives the inspectors' report, but it is clear that health is a matter of great importance in this case. The Minister of Health will certainly be consulted and asked to advise on all aspects within his responsibility. I hope this reassures both my hon. Friends that we are properly concerned that all aspects of health should be given their due and full consideration after the inquiry. I turn now to the serious statement made by my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, South—that the result of the inquiry is more or less a foregone conclusion. One of the reasons he gave for this observation was that the inspector from the Ministry of Power had said that the inquiry would last only three days—or at least that someone had said that. From this my hon. Friend deduced that the whole matter had been taken lightly and a decision would not be made on the merits of the case.
I gather that he has so interpreted a remark which was based on sound past experience. Sixteen joint inquiries have been held under the Electricity Acts. Fifteen lasted three days or less, including

inquiries covering proposed nuclear power stations. Only one lasted more than that, and that extended to four days, plus two half days. The inspector was not, therefore, saying anything outrageous. He said:
I had hoped that the inquiry would last only three days, but it looks as though it will last a fortnight
His earlier hope was soon shattered as the massive volume of objections became known, and his practical forecast showed a realistic awareness of the situation as he saw it. I hope that this gives my hon. Friend new confidence in the inquiry and convinces him that neither time nor any other factor will prevent the issue being decided entirely on its merits.
The last point, which both my hon. Friends considered of great importance, appears to enter into the merits of the question before the inquiry, and I will deal with it but lightly. It is the Board's estimate that a saving of £600,000 per annum would be made if its proposed site were used instead of the one proposed by the county council. My hon. Friend said that the board had not yet complied with the demand of the objectors that details of how this saving had been calculated should be produced. I understand that the Board made a suggestion to overcome the difficulty. It felt bound to respect the sanctity of private contracts and was not prepared to disclose details of them for public scrutiny, but it suggested that the objectors should appoint a competent person of their own choosing to check the calculations, which are very complex, involved in computing the estimated saving. I am told that this suggestion was unacceptable because access to the actual contracts would not be granted.
However, I am now authorised by the Board to say that if such a person is appointed—and it hopes that he will be—he will be given access to the relevant documents including the contracts under a guarantee of secrecy. With this information, perhaps a new approach to the board's suggestion will now be made by the objectors, and the problem which worries my hon. Friends and others might disappear.
But there should be no change of attitude towards this problem. I would draw my hon. Friend's attention to the fact that the Minister will have to consider, when he receives the inspectors'


report, whether the Board has made an adequate case, and this is one of the matters he will have to take into consideration. If he decides—and this relates to the point made by the Lord Chancellor in another place—that he needs more information before reaching a decision, he will then have to determine how it can best be provided.
Any factual evidence obtained after the inquiry would be submitted to the parties for their observations before a decision is taken. This is in accordance with the Franks Committee's Recommendation No. 83. The Committee also envisaged that there might be cases where it would be desirable to give the parties an opportunity to cross-examine on the new evidence. That is in paragraph 350. Whether it would be necessary to reopen the inquiry would depend on the nature of the new evidence, and this cannot be said until the Minister has received the inspectors' report. I can assure the House, however, that the Minister would certainly be prepared to reopen the inquiry if it appeared necessary to do so.
I trust that I have covered all the points raised, and have succeeded in removing some of the misconceptions which have, unfortunately, prevailed. I am glad to have had this opportunity to clear the air somewhat, for feelings have undoubtedly been running high. It does an inquiry no good if matters are allowed to remain in a state where ill-feeling is engendered. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, South for raising the matter, even though it has been raised at a most difficult time,

and to my hon. Friend the Member for Carlton who has most assiduously pressed his constituency views upon my right hon. Friend and myself. Indeed, for weeks past my right hon. Friend and I have been bombarded with correspondence from the hon. Members and with demands for interviews.
I hope most sincerely that what I have said puts the minds of my hon. Friends much more at ease and makes them feel that this inquiry will be conducted as it should be conducted, that the evidence will be judged purely upon the merits of the case, that the inspector's report will, as always, be truly impartial, and that all the evidence will, in fact, as it always is, be studied completely fairly and impartially by the Minister, and the decision taken entirely upon the merits of the case.

Mr. Ray Gunter: There is one brief point which I wish to raise. During the course of his remarks the hon. Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. W. Clark) said that the nationalised industries have very wide powers and he expressed the hope that those powers would not be abused. I assume from the Minister's reply that he is quite happy that the nationalised industry involved has not in any sense abused the powers vested in it.

Mr. George: I am quite happy in that respect.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at fourteen minutes to One o'clock.